A fact from Nova Studios appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 April 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Nova Studios developed the "West Coast Look", a stylized and highly planned filmmaking style of gay pornography which dominated the genre through the 1980s?
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
129.21.107.119, I appreciate the effort to remove in appropriate sexual slang from Wikipedia articles. However, in this case, the word in question occurred as part of a quotation. I don't think anyone should alter that quotation. The quotation is included because it makes a point in a very unique way, and is particularly well-worded. In some cases, an original quotation could be altered (for example, for tense). But the changed wording would need to be set apart through the use of brackets to indicate to the reader that a word was changed. Additionally, if the word contravened Wikipedia policy to such an egregious extent that it must be changed, I would argue that, in addition to the brackets, a footnote should be added to indicate that the word cannot be used on Wikipedia and the appropriate Wikipedia policy cited. Barring such a justification, I argue for a revision back to the orginal quotation. - Tim196518:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
