Vintage Erotica Forums

Vintage Erotica Forums (http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/index.php)
-   Classic Celebrities (http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   IMPORTANT Amendment to dates used in Celebs sections (http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/showthread.php?t=344235)

Wendigo December 2nd, 2017 08:28 PM

IMPORTANT Amendment to dates used in Celebs sections
 
We have been looking at this for a while and have now made a decision to change the dates we use in the Celebs sections

The current status is
Vintage - born pre 1936
Classic - born 1936 - 1975
Modern - born 1976 and later

The proposed change will be
Vintage - born pre 1945
Classic - born 1945 - 1984
Modern - born 1985 and later

This will be a massive change and will take a while to sort out so we ask members to bear with us whilst we are moving posts & threads around. Please do not send any reports on images being in the wrong section for the time being.

Once I have finished cleaning Modern Celebs as per the current dates we will start with Classic Celebs in the next month or so and move any celebs born before 1945 to the Vintage section.

It will be a very long job so we know some posts may be missed and members making new posts just add them to the regular threads for now, please be patient and do not send reports on posts/threads in the wrong section as it will only slow the work down.

Wendigo December 16th, 2017 07:34 PM

The first step has been completed, I have moved all the main celeb threads for those born between 1936 and 1944 into the Vintage area.

As noted above the Classic Celeb forum is purely for those stars born between 1945 and 1984 .

The various lesser known threads will be cleaned of any existing posts that need moving at a later date. As it states in the all site message above please do not start reporting posts now so we can concentrate on moving the main threads.

We are now moving onto the Modern celebs forum and moving stars born between 1976 and 1984 to the Classic section.

Wendigo January 13th, 2018 06:02 PM

Step 3 has now been done moving posts from Classic generic threads into the most appropriate Vintage threads

Some threads like Sport stars and Women of Star Trek the Original series have not been split.

Now moving onto moving posts for stars born 1976 to 1984 from the Modern generic threads through to Classic

signal January 15th, 2018 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wendigo (Post 4252258)
We have been looking at this for a while and have now made a decision to change the dates we use in the Celebs sections

The current status is
Vintage - born pre 1936
Classic - born 1936 - 1975
Modern - born 1976 and later

The proposed change will be
Vintage - born pre 1945
Classic - born 1945 - 1984
Modern - born 1985 and later

This will be a massive change and will take a while to sort out so we ask members to bear with us whilst we are moving posts & threads around. Please do not send any reports on images being in the wrong section for the time being.

Once I have finished cleaning Modern Celebs as per the current dates we will start with Classic Celebs in the next month or so and move any celebs born before 1945 to the Vintage section.

It will be a very long job so we know some posts may be missed and members making new posts just add them to the regular threads for now, please be patient and do not send reports on posts/threads in the wrong section as it will only slow the work down.

This is, I think, a great idea. I have resisted any comment on the
old age group set up, because I did not want to rock the boat. However,
I could not help noting that some actresses in the classic section were
actually young enough to be the granddaughters of the oldest actresses
in that same group. The new arrangement will make a lot more sense,
and I really appreciate both the idea and the big effort in reworking
the many, many postings. My thanks to all who are making this
reorganization happen.

mantan January 21st, 2020 11:23 AM

Ehhh I could ask: WHY did this all change? Cause a lot of those "Classic" celebs have been acting in the 2000s. Are 2000's now considered 'classic'?

mantan December 20th, 2022 03:18 PM

I come back after all these years and see things messed up in terms of order. Now even young celebs are "vintage"? This is a pointless exercise in futility and makes no sense. Go back to the old system! This one sucks

PoloMintGuy December 20th, 2022 04:18 PM

Hi there mantan!

Quote:

Originally Posted by mantan (Post 6508038)
I come back after all these years and see things messed up in terms of order.

The same system is in place as when you last complained above, back in 2020. :confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mantan (Post 6508038)
Now even young celebs are "vintage"?

Given that a celeb has to have been born before 1945 to be in Vintage Elegance & Beauty, there's not really anyone in there you could argue is young today. :) Maybe young at heart. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mantan (Post 6508038)
This is a pointless exercise in futility and makes no sense.

Not at all, all turned out well & the system works & makes perfect sense.

The goal posts have to move at some point or else the Modern/Classic/Vintage categories would become nonsensical. They'll likely move again somewhere in the future.

Locking in place as you advocate would stretch modern to mean everyone else that came after what you'd call classic, which might make sense to you but would quickly become ridiculous. Already people born in 2000 are in their 20's with careers! :eek:

So makes perfect sense any celeb born in the mid 80's is going to be part of the "Modern" section now.

To me the 80's were something I lived through, to younger members anything set then is a period piece. :D

Things change.

You're also taking the terminology way to literally, Classic, Vintage & Modern are used as a convenient method for filing. Lots of celebs that fall even into the old date range system aren't true "classics", there's a strong element of personal opinion in what makes a classic if taken more literally. They need to be split up somehow to be sorted & this system works well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mantan (Post 6508038)
Go back to the old system! This one sucks

Well, given the amount of thanks you've handed out over the years to the many wonderful content posts here, it's kinda hard to give your criticisms much weight. Still I've taken time to respond to you in hopes you'll relax & enjoy the wonderful material from all eras available for free (and maybe you'll thank a few of them too).;) :thumbsup:

Hobbit_sam December 21st, 2022 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoloMintGuy (Post 6508093)
...Given that a celeb has to have been born before 1945 to be in Vintage Elegance & Beauty, there's not really anyone in there you could argue is young today. :) Maybe young at heart. ;)

Not at all, all turned out well & the system works & makes perfect sense.

The goal posts have to move at some point or else the Modern/Classic/Vintage categories would become nonsensical. They'll likely move again somewhere in the future.

Locking in place as you advocate would stretch modern to mean everyone else that came after what you'd call classic, which might make sense to you but would quickly become ridiculous. Already people born in 2000 are in their 20's with careers! :eek:

So makes perfect sense any celeb born in the mid 80's is going to be part of the "Modern" section now...

A suggestion if I may.

Whilst the system does work well I wonder if there is an argument for revisiting these ranges again, it is after all 5 years since the last change was proposed so maybe it is time to add 5 years to the ranges, Vintage pre 1950, classic 50-89 and modern 90 onwards?

Appreciating that it is a massive amount of work to undertake to do this but with those born in the mid 80's heading for their 40th maybe something to consider?

PoloMintGuy December 21st, 2022 11:28 AM

Home on the date range...
 
Hi there Hobbit_sam!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hobbit_sam (Post 6508855)
A suggestion if I may.

Certainly, always good to hear member's thoughts on the section.:) :thumbsup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hobbit_sam (Post 6508855)
Whilst the system does work well I wonder if there is an argument for revisiting these ranges again, it is after all 5 years since the last change was proposed so maybe it is time to add 5 years to the ranges, Vintage pre 1950, classic 50-89 and modern 90 onwards?

Well I would say it's important to keep in mind that the date range used to define Modern, Classic or Vintage does not actually mark out the period of movies & TV etc. covered by the section. This is something easy to be misled by.

For example, Modern is anyone born 1985 & onwards, not material from 1985 (as the celeb would only be a baby:D). Given that we only allow images of 18 year olds & above, you need to add 18 to the earliest date range of the sections to see the actual period of film & TV etc. likely covered.

So once you take that into account, modern is really covering material from 2003 (the earliest point anyone born 1985 could be 18) to present.

I feel that 2003 still "feels" like modern.

Admittedly, as covered in my previous post above, there is a strong element of personal view in what people think feels right for modern, classic & vintage that will depend greatly on their age.

To some anything after 1979 is modern :D & their classic can be as short as a decade, usually the one they were in their "prime" in. :cool: But this system is for sorting not defining or grading historical periods.

I really feel material from early 2000's hits the modern feel for the majority still.

Classic starting in 1945 means (applying the 18 plus for birth date) material from 1963 onwards seems a reasonable definition as well.

Vintage has no cut off for earliest birth but latest is 1944, again I feel this mostly feels right.

The test for me is if these ranges produce many things that "feel" wrong, keeping in mind it's a system for sorting & not intended to imply quality. For the most part I don't often encounter anything that sticks out like a sore thumb under the current date range.

I will admit to being a little surprised on occasion when an actress like Diana Rigg is in Vintage rather than Classic (as she was born 1938) but that's mostly because I grew up with The Avengers & having a crush on Mrs. Peel. :o There's always going to be some fuzzy cases when you get to the borders of the sections, you just need to remember it's a filing system.

Another consequence to keep in mind of the date range starting at the celeb's birth date & not the period they worked is that the Classic & Vintage sections can & do contain material from well past their end ranges, even up to the present day if the celeb carried on working. Classic & Vintage can have modern material as long as the celeb is still working (Diana Rigg in Vintage section could have material from Game of Thrones as she was on that show during her career), which again highlights why it's best not to view the sections as defining a single historical period.

It's kinda complicated when you start giving it some serious thought. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hobbit_sam (Post 6508855)
Appreciating that it is a massive amount of work to undertake to do this but with those born in the mid 80's heading for their 40th maybe something to consider?

Yes, shifting the date range is a massive undertaking. :eek: Unfortunately there isn't really an effective way to "scoop" up all the celebs of a particular birth date range & move them to another section. It has to be done by hand looking for all those that fall into the range. While the previous move was done exceedingly well, we still find the occasional celeb that got overlooked & needs moving to the new categorization.

On top of that, each celeb is logged in either the Modern, Classic or Vintage A-Z & would need to be removed from the one they are in & swapped to the new one they move too.

So a lot of work, which means the benefit of change needs to be high & why even an update every five years is not a desirable thing.

Added to that, as I outlined above, I think the current date range used still has legs & mostly "feels" right. :) For now... :eek:

I hope that reasoning makes sense to you. :thumbsup:

Hobbit_sam December 21st, 2022 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoloMintGuy (Post 6509062)
Hi there Hobbit_sam!

Certainly, always good to hear member's thoughts on the section.:) :thumbsup:

Well I would say it's important to keep in mind that the date range used to define Modern, Classic or Vintage does not actually mark out the period of movies & TV etc. covered by the section. This is something easy to be misled by...

...I hope that reasoning makes sense to you. :thumbsup:

I am now going to stand in the corner with my back to the room wearing my D hat.

Everything you say makes perfect sense, just wondering why I didn't think it through before commenting.

Thank you for putting me on the path to enlightenment.

:)


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:57 PM.



vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.1 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.