Talk:Zazel: The Scent of Love

Holy fair use overload, Batman!

Is it really needed? Defendable? Desirable? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind fair use; how about "Holy porn pics overload, Batman!" Not very encyclopedial, imho. Definitevly deletable! Most likely 75-80 per cent of the blow-by-blow coverage could be deleted, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.159.198.175 (talk • contribs)

What I find really striking is that the link to the Adult Movie Database is marked "Warning, contains explicit images", but the images there--really, just the cover, and perhaps a few random covers in the navigation bar--are far less explicit than those on the Wikipedia page. Tahnan (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia is not censored! and why woud someone how don't like porn read about a porn movie in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.116.82.68 (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox?

I'm not sure if this needs an infobox, but if so, could any of the editors here find a place for it in the main page? I wouldn't like marring the layout. As for filling in the rest of the data... Hoverfish Talk 19:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, since I was encouraged in WP Films Talk to do so, I went ahead and added it. Hoverfish Talk 14:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful quotes

I have commented out purported quotes by one ‘Pierre Jamison’ and one ‘Carlisle Weber’, supposedly a cinematographer and French porn director, respectively. Both quotes were added at the same day (January 26, 2009) by the same IP user, and neither person could be found in IMDB or indeed anywhere on the Web.

These quotes look like pranks; if no evidence of the existence of these two persons can be provided, they should be deleted.

--85.180.43.172 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Since no substantiation was offered, I have deleted the two passages. --85.180.43.172 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.40.177 (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zazel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150501060032/http://penthouse.com/vodhbs/model/17839/view.html to http://penthouse.com/vodhbs/model/17839/view.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 3 August 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page to Zazel: The Scent of Love and the disambiguation page to Zazel at this time, per the discussion below; there is no consensus that the film is the primary topic of "Zazel". Dekimasuよ! 21:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Zazel → Zazel: The Scent of Love – Zazel is the name of a historically significant circus performer, the first human cannonball, about which there are sources spanning 140 years (see Rossa Matilda Richter). At very least I don't think the movie is the main topic. I'm not proposing moving that article into this space, as my sense is that there isn't a clear main topic. Rather, I'm proposing that since this has a full title it can use without being cumbersome, it makes sense to use it, and to turn Zazel into a disambiguation page. There are also some spirits, angels, and fictional characters with the name that we already cover which would be included in that dab. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk | contribs} 21:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support move Zazel (disambiguation) to baseline. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep As Is: FWIW - the original article titling (ie, "Zazel" - as well as the current article hat note to the circus performer - and - additional "Zazel (circus performer)" "WP:Redirect") seems *entirely* sufficient to me at the moment - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• BRIEF Followup - the related "Zazel (spirit) " article has been newly created - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Drbogdan: To be clear, you're saying that this adult film is the clear primary topic? Could you clarify why? If there is a primary topic, it seems like it would be Rossa Matilda Richter, for whom there is a great deal of coverage. That I could today find dozens of sources about her just from the late 1800s and early 1900s seems pretty significant. In other words, is someone on Wikipedia who types in "Zazel" most likely looking for "Zazel: The Scent of Love" or for "Zazel," the human cannonball? Obviously the adult film industry excels at search engine optimization, but looking anywhere but the main google search returns more for the latter (and the google search is currently affected by the present setup at Wikipedia). I would also point out that the pageviews are not that dissimilar, which is noteworthy considering anyone typing in "Zazel" looking for the person will first mark a pageview for this before finding that article. To be clear, I'm not arguing for that article to become the main topic -- I just think it's not clear-cut that there is one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: Thank you for your comments - yes - I understand - however - at the moment, "Google search term results" seem to *greatly* favor "Zazel (film)" over "Zazel (circus performer)" - as follows => Zazel (7,840,000 results); Zazel video (497,000); Zazel film (416,000); Zazel 1997 (139,000); Zazel circus (110,000); Zazel Richter (18,500); Zazel cannonball (9,080) - hope this helps in some way - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• There's a reason we don't just base these decisions on Google search results. Any porn-related topic is going to be inflated by a google search; anything from the internet era is going to be inflated in a google search. Google doesn't search century-old newspaper archives -- it favors what's new, and for something like an adult film will include in its search results countless database entries, porn sites, ecommerce websites, etc. that reference it because it's porn (i.e. they aren't real sources). There is no product to buy/index/advertise/optimize for/aggregate for the other Zazel -- just the actual sources themselves. But I'll leave it at that. I just believe rather strongly that we shouldn't copy what Google says is most important. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support, and move Zazel (disambiguation) to the base page name, as proposed. The film is significant in its genre, having an unusually high production budget for its time and having won a substantial number of awards in the industry. However, its notability within its genre is still limited by that genre. By historical importance, the spirit creature is probably the most significant concept. There is no clear primary topic among all the possibilities. bd2412 T 04:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

 Page mover comment So, if there is consensus to move, "Zazel" should be the disamb page, right? —usernamekiran(talk) 18:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• I believe that Rhododendrites, In ictu oculi, and myself all share that preference. I have expanded the disambiguation page somewhat. bd2412 T 19:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  Yes. Zazel makes the most sense as a dab. my reason for going into more detail above, comparing the adult film and the person, was more to show that there is no clear main topic than to argue for a different main topic. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW - I understand the comments (and rationale) presented by others above - however - I continue to think, at the moment, the better link of Zazel is to the film, as it now exists, without a move to some other link or a dab - mostly, due to the very high "Google search term results" noted above - and also to the worthy notability of the film itself in terms of artistic excellence (albeit erotic), and the many awards it has received (also as noted above and on the Zazel article page) - also, of possible interest, is my very brief, but perhaps relevant, Zazel film review (IMDB; 17 June 1999), published some time ago - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No one is denying that it is a significant film within its genre. However, I wrote this article in the first place. I am now admitting that I was mistaken in putting it at this title, as I did not think to check whether there were other notable meanings of the term. bd2412 T 22:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

References

• Yes, Zazel should be the dab In ictu oculi (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.