Template talk:Infobox adult female/Archive 1

Archive 1

no fields visible?

Presumably due to User:Melancholie's latest edits, nothing is showing up for me except a pink box with the actresses' name. -EdgarAllanToe 14:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is intended! A table row is only shown if you fill in information in an article. If any parameter is undefined (not given at all, or the parameter line was removed from the article (that's rather often the case)) or empty (mentioned, but with no value "|death="), the superfluous, unnecessary table cells are not shown! --- Best regards, Melancholie 15:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that many articles on my watchlist had most of the fields filled in. Now when I check on them, there is only the name and no other information. For instance, Anna Malle. -EdgarAllanToe 12:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I checked out Anna Malle and didn't find any fields missing. Perhaps you need to purge your browser's cache or simply do a hard-refresh of the page in question. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 15:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Purged, forced a refresh of the page, and still just see a pink box with the name. If others can see the information, it's obviously a peculiarity of my setup. Damn. -EdgarAllanToe 16:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Which web browser and operating system do you use? Maybe it's a problem of your browser (but if so, I do not know why, because the whole thing is done by the Wikipedia server)? Could you additionally have a look on the HTML source code? -- Best regards, Melancholie 17:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have made two changes (one in the row "birthdate" and one in the row "birth location"! Does your browser show one of these? I recognized that Opera and Firefox prefer style="" to class="", and when style="" is used twice, they prefer the second of these both. So "style" and the "last mentioning" has most weight (like it should be, of course ;-). Maybe your browser works different? Dillo, for example, shows everything, as long as the parameters are defined (valued or empty). If not, {{{..xyz..}}} appears (Dillo generally does not render CSS,..). This means we should not delete the parameters ("|death=") in the articles! -- Best regards, Melancholie 21:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Birth location shows up for me now. I am using IE 6.0, by the way. -EdgarAllanToe 11:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

For your information: Still having the same problems with this template as reported by Edgar... Is this really a browser thing or is some other repair to be done? Regards, --Garnier 10:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Garnier, EdgarAllanToe: Is everything visible for you now? --Melancholie 20:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The example on this page is now working for me. -EdgarAllanToe 15:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Confirmed. And thank you. --Garnier 19:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

New fields

num. films / name

Two missing fields that I would like are:

• Number of Films — estimates are available from the adult DBs
• Name — so I can change it

What do people think? --vossman 20:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Problem now is that once the changes are implemented to the template, each page using the template will have to be edited to ensure that the template displays correctly. (Otherwise some of the results will turn out to be less than desired...) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the changes. You may now edit the name attribute by adding "name=" (sans quotes) to the FAB template syntax. (Make sure to use the pipe as well to denote the end of the field!) Unlike the other fields in the template, you do not need to explicitly declare this line within the template syntax; it'll just default to the name of the article. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've noticed your comments, but didn't respond. Good job. --vossman 16:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

iafd/imdb links

Wouldn't it be much better to add links to iafd/imdb at the end of the infobox ? These are extremely useful and should be present on every article anyway. This avoids cluttering the "See also" section. This is done on the film info box (Template:Infobox_Film). Actually I am a little bit reserved about the usefulness of imdb links but if we want them anyway it is still better to put them in the infobox, for consistency. -- tonigonenstein 23:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with this. I'll begin work on the template Monday. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Now all that needs to be done is to add the proper id numbers/strings to the iafd and imdb fields. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Applications

Should this template be used for non-pornographic actresses? Right now it's being used at Rachel Sterling and I'm just curious if it's the right template to be using for her. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 01:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it works and it's the right tool for the job, I guess it can be applied to articles akin to Rachel Sterling. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 02:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And Benazir Bhutto? It works, but I don't think it is the right tool for the job. --Palnatoke 11:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's also in use on Jodie Foster's article. Would you disagree with its usage on that page as well? I'll grant you that the template was originally meant to summarize porn actress info, but it can be used on other pages that have absolutely nothing to do with pornography. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 01:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This template has gotten too huge now

Does anyone else agree that all the public hair/body hair other miscellaneous crap, ahem, information bloats the template? If so, please lets begin discussion on how to condense the template. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Skin color, underarm hair, and pubic hair are of little use, especially the later as it may change almost daily. Dismas|^(talk) 03:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned the template. I did keep the skin color (although I think I may remove it, but I'm still undecided on its being in the template) and I kept the blood field as well, seeing as the latter is a sought after attribute in Japanese porn stars/idols. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 02:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Remove "orientation" listing

This could lead to a libel case. Just because a woman has appeared in a lesbian role does not mean she is lesbian or bisexual. It's acting, just like any non-porn actress who has played a lesbian but does not identify as such. I propose moving the item from the template. Jokestress 03:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I got your e-mail. :-) I believe that the field just needs to be clarified. Perhaps we would be better off noting "on screen" orientation, rather than real life orientation. Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 19:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I took it out for the time being because of a complaint by a porn actor, but, I guess maybe a "Roles played" vs. "Orientation" could be OK. I'm not sure what the value of that is, though. It seems like pretty much any woman in porn has done a scene with another woman. In addition, I imagine any complaints are going to come from males who object to being labeled (which started the issue). Jokestress 10:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

i think it's important to distinguish "roles played" and /or "orientation". in the industry, a big factor in the work one gets is who he/she is willing to have sex with. 67.172.61.222 23:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Question

What does "afdb" mean? File:Myscreenshot.jpg I Am Ri¢h! 23:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an acronym: Adult Film Database. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the URL for the site? (last question) Never mind, I figured out. File:Myscreenshot.jpg I Am Ri¢h! 01:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"alias"

Is this to include aliases OTHER than the main one? Because as it currently is, if that's the case, then it's very confusing. --Golbez 14:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Perhaps the wording could be made a bit more precise. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 01:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Natural Bust neccessary?

If this template must have a "natural bust" parameter, I suggest we change it to simply "bust", with the options "natural" and "enhanced". With the phrasing "Natural bust?", there seems to be an underlying assumption that "they all have fake boobs". Obviously, changing all the articles this template is used on would take a lot of work, though perhaps a bot could help out with this. szyslak 09:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to this. Seems like the neutral thing to do. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 11:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this category heading neccessary? This topic is frequently a subject of dispute with various female celebrities and models, and is often hard, if not impossible, to conclusively resolve. Some plastic surgery techniques can make breast implants much harder to detect than normal (such as submuscular underfilled implants.) For a lot of celebrities, the only real way to be fully certain of this is if the person in question admits to having had surgery. In any case, this category doesn't really seem to be all that significant for most of the articles (and for many of women for whom this question would be relevant, it is as mentioned impossible to find a 100% certain answer.) -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.30.206.67 (talk • contribs)

Actually, given that this piece of information is of interest (particularly for the big-busted models), I would say it's relevant. However, in cases where we don't know, the field could easily be left blank depending on the article's subject. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 13:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of private interest: Why are breast enlargments not natural when breast reduction surgeries are? --32X 21:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because in breast enlargement, you're adding something to the body that would not naturally be there (silicone or whatever), but breast reduction you're just taking stuff away, and at the end of both surgeries only breasts that have undergone breast reduction are still entirely composed of natural tissue/fat/etc? Xmoogle (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think in the context of porn, yes, the information is very relevant. And "hard to tell"? We're talking about porn here – when breasts aren't hidden by clothing, I think its pretty easy to tell an enhanced breast from a natural one. The downside, of course, is that this constitutes original research. Anyway, I'm sure there are interviews and websites that could be cited on the subject. Iamcuriousblue 05:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remove this field as people keep inserting unverified information based on their own personal analysis (original research). They keep doing it because the field is there. I would rather have any verified mention of the breast enhancement in the biography itself. Any other opinions on this? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Morbidthoughts' thoughts in that it is a target for OR and also, I think, vandalism. Getting an enlargement has become so common place that it is often not even mentioned. Especially if it was done before the actress got into the business professionally. Dismas|^(talk) 21:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Epbr123 (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur as well, and offhand it looks like most of the really active WP:P* users have chimed in. I'll pull it from the template so it'll no longer show up on the various articles. Tabercil (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Birth Name?

I think it is inappropriate and dangerous to include birth names in pornstar bios on wikipedia. Pornographic film actresses work under assumed names for very good reasons including reputation and safety. There is also no public interest served by including that information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.58.56.5 (talk • contribs)

I don't think its either inappropriate or dangerous, unless the information does not come from a verified and reliable source. If we don't have a valid, reliable source for the information, then I do agree that it should be removed. However, neither Wikipedia nor any self-respecting information source has, amongst its goals, to protect people from themselves or to decide which information is "dangerous". In addition, the "public interest" is a weasel term at best. It's also an oxymoron of sorts like "common sense". If we went by that, you'd be surprised by what the public is interested in. We are here to report, not to protect. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 20:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The name of the template

In the Russian wiki, the translation of this template is heavily debated. One of the issues is the title. The translation of the title was more like "Female porn star" literally Pornoaktrisa (Порноактриса). The opponent claimed that this title bears heavily derogatery connotations. Let us perform an imaginary experiment: what if the English template is renamed into Female Pornstar? (The specifics of the Russian language is that it is only hardcore that is called Pornografia. The softcore is called Erotika (Эротика)). Wouldn't the women editors protest because of this renaming? Alexei Kouprianov 00:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why only the women would complain. --Golbez 01:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Then, I reformulate the question: why the authors of the English template didn't call it Female pornstar bio and used Female adult bio instead? The other issue is why the orientation field renders invisible on the pages, even when filled? Alexei Kouprianov 06:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suppose that the person who named it used "adult" because "porn film" is more of a colloquial phrase whereas the industry term is "adult film" (e.g. Adult Video News). Also, softcore films, as well as hardcore, both fall under the umbrella term of "adult movies". Dismas|^(talk) 09:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Added "Eurobabeindex" field

I added a field for Eurobabeindex, since this database lists website appearances that are not listed in the film or video databases like IMDB or IAFD. There are actually several databases along the lines of Eurobabeindex, but Eurobabeindex is the most complete that I know of. Iamcuriousblue 18:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hair length field

I suggest a hair length field. There are large communities on the Internet of admierers of very short or very long hair. Hair length is a just as important key factor as hair color when searching for a model you don't remember the name of. Based on this factor, the model may be listed in the list page Women with very long hair. The field may reflect the most extreme value, for example the longest or shortest hair length the model ever has had. Examples of possible values in this field - commonly used in various hair dicsussion forums:

• Crew cut (or cropped)
• Boy's cut
• Chin length
• Shoulder length
• Upper back length
• Mid back length (or Bra strap length)
• Waist length
• Tailbone length (or butt-length)
• Thigh length (or Mid-thigh length)
• Knee-length
• Floor length
• Beyond floor

If I don't here any comment on this within a few hours, I will add the field. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Longhairadmirer (talk • contribs) 12:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

That's hard to find information on. The other numerical fields - date of birth, and "measurements", for example - are more common, and can be found in the IAFD, and Adult Film Database for example. Also many performers that have a personal web site put them up there. Where are you going to find a reasonably reliable source for hair length for most of our articles? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that the uncommon or extreme lengths - say greater than waist length - are probably going to be important enough to note in the body of the article in a sentence or two. But their rarity is what makes them noteworthy. An info box is for important stats for most of the subjects. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that such a thing is hard to find information on, and since hair styles can (and do) change drastically and frequently, I do not think the infobox would benefit from such a field. Furthermore, the information is so uncommon that it doesn't merit inclusion in an infobox. And any unique or rare hair lengths can easily be noted in the article's body. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 05:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm also opposed to having the field included. I agree with the statements of both Joe Beaudoin Jr. and AnonEMouse. Dismas|^(talk) 05:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Propose "bgafd" and "egafd" fields

I would like to propose fields for bgafd and egafd, databases that lists films made by British and other European actors and actresses who often aren't listed in iafd and other film or video databases. Malik Shabazz 18:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We already have eurobabeindex, unless there's another pressing reason to add these two databasees. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• These do not seem to add much. They have nothign like the authority of the others already listed, and I have yet to come across an article with a link to BGAFD that does not also have IAFD links. OK, not quite true - one or two now-deleted articles had, but that's because they failed WP:PORNBIO. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with these adds and was thinking of doing it myself. Guy's contention that listings in the BGAFD and EGAFD are already largely covered in IAFD is simply wrong. IAFD does not cover the European adult industry, hence there are numerous British, French, German, etc. titles that are not listed in IAFD. Nor is this content covered by Eurobabeindex, which primarilly covers website content. I say, add the fields – its not like they have to be used for each and every actress listed, just use them where appropriate (like the "Eurobabeindex" field). Iamcuriousblue 22:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Charmaine Sinclair is an example of an actress who is covered in bgafd but not in iafd or eurobabeindex. Julia Chanel is in both egafd and iafd, but compare her entries at the two sites. (Like Sinclair, Chanel isn't in eurobabeindex.) Malik Shabazz 05:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Corrections or additions can (and are) always made to databases, much like wikipedia. So if someone finds that a porn star isn't added in IAFD, then they can always submit corrections or additions. Still, as an interim solution, links to databases not supported by this template can always be added to the external link sections of the articles as needed. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 12:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• To be honest, I firmly believe that the template is getting too long as it is and, on that basis alone, object to the addition of additional filmographies. Adding more fields would be detrimental to the original need for this template—which is to summarize and include information that would otherwise be unwieldy in the main article body. Having said that, please note that contributors are more than welcome to add filmography links from verifiable and reliable sources to the article's external links section, should consensus permit. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 12:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is simply an argument for getting rid of some other superfluous fields rather than not adding egafd and bgafd, which are highly useful, non-superfluous sources of information about European adult actresses. The afdb field should absolutely go – AFDB has absolutely no information not found on IAFD and is essentially a site run by an online retailer – glorified linkspam, really. Other less-than-useful field include orientation (eg, sexual orientation, which inevitably seems to be "bisexual") and blood (blood type - why???). films seems like another superfluous one; it be useful in rare cases where an actress has only appeared in a very few films and isn't on any of the databases – but in that case, why would they even be notable enough to have an article to begin with?

Consider including egafd and bgafd and getting rid of these other ones. Iamcuriousblue 23:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That's probably the best solution, actually. I'll write a summary of what changes need to be done, so that people can voice their views on them later. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 00:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

We've discussed the AFDB link before, and consensus indicated that it was an O.K. link. The number of films is somewhat useful, more from a statistical standpoint. As for the blood thing, this is more for Japanese AV idols rather than European or American pornography performers. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes to template

In lieu of the discussion above, I think its time that the infobox be trimmed back a bit. Here are my thoughts on what needs to go:

• Removal
  • orientation (an often misused field, encyclopedically it has no merit and the content could easily be integrated into the article body, if need be)
  • skin color (really, no need for this, as this can easily be determined)
  • shoe size (an absolutely unencyclopedic field, with no more merit than a field on hair length)

I believe the filmography links could be ordered better, into clickable boxes, which would look something like:

Filmography databases
IMDB	IAFD
AFDB	Eurobabeindex
EGAFD	BGAFD

This would reduce template clutter. Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I like this, though I would put EGAFD and BGAFD right underneath IAFD, as they have the most analogous content. A problem with this template, though – many, maybe even most, actresses are not going to be in every database.

Also, could you explain why AFDB is not superfluous? Iamcuriousblue 10:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I prefer that the list of links be in alphabetical order, as that removes any bias. As for the AFDB, the discussion that was done six months ago is here. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 11:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Orientation is absolutely encyclopedic, but I would take it out of the infobox. I would remove the other two fields from the infobox too. The more stuff is in an infobox the less useful it is -- too visually distracting. As a matter of user interface, I would restrict infoboxes to half a dozen fields at most. --lquilter 15:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  Honestly I would also delete hair & eye color. Hair color is completely changeable, and does it mean natural; most famous for; current ...? Eye color is increasingly changeable with colored contacts and will pose the same issue. Skin color is actually more stable than either of these. --lquilter 15:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 17:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• I would also remove weight, which never stays the same and is not easily verifiable anyway (since it's frequently lied about). Height is stable, but I would get rid of it.

  Finally, I would just keep the professional stuff & very basic bio stuff: birth/birthplace/death; aliases; I would change # of films to filming career (a date range); and include the links to significant websites, like official site and entry in DBs for complete filmographies; and I would include a space for notable works or awards, to be limited to no more than 3. --lquilter 15:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the weight thing. Height I would keep, as well as the measurements (since they're given out frequently), and I do agree that the number of films should be changed to a date range indicating the span of the person's career. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 17:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick cmt: I really dislike the BWH measurements category, for, among other reasons, the changeability of it, but I'm going to recuse myself from that discussion for right now. Even if I were for BWH measurements, however, I would still advocate for eliminating the other physical attributes because they are (a) variable; (b) clutter making it hard to see more important things. --lquilter 20:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of these fields are changable... I favor removal of orientation, which I've always thought was borderline absurd. (How many exclusively lesbian adult stars are there? And how many female stars don't engage in the occasional lesbian scene?) I tend to look at the physical data as a snap-shot of the model's statistics at one particular time. Because of my own area of specialization, I favor Blood Type and Shoe Size (less so). Neither one really interests me personally, but because both are almost almost given in Japanese profiles, we can assume that they are considered important statistics over there. I'd like the ability (though I realize it's probably not practical) to put in two or three standard Japanese databases, which I use as sources on every page I can: The JMDB (a standard filmography source, comparable to IMDB), the Web I-dic (or "Idol Dictionary"), and maybe the "AV Idol Directory". I realize that these are completely useless to editors in the non-Japanese articles, but then these other links are usually equally useless for the Japanese subjects... The ability to put in whichever ones are needed would be nice. (By the way, I hope it doesn't appear that I'm making these suggestions out of any sort of national bias. I leave the suggestions for the US subjects up to the editors in those articles, but just want to mention concerns I have as an editor in the Japanese articles. In my research, I've repeatedly read (in English) that the Japanese porn industry is the largest and most visible in the world, so I think some sort of concession to the differences between the US and Japan is not out of order.) I've been doing what I can to make sure every article in the "Category:Japanese porn stars" is as good as it can be. Lately I feel like the unintentional bias against the non-US articles is much more under control, since the issue has been raised. But incidents like recent threat against the entire Japanese porn star category here in retaliation for something as slight as an expression of concern over POV-pushing leads me to suspect that attacks out of intentional bias are always imminent... Dekkappai 20:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also favor removal of hair and eye-color. Speaking from my editing experience, number on physical dimensions, even though changable, are usually given in some official profile. Hair and eye-color is probably taken from the editor's personal viewing (i.e., original research) of photos or videos. Dekkappai 21:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

More fields

To be added:

• pubic hair - shaved/partly shaved/not shaved
• work - does she do cum swallowing/anal/A2M/creampies/girl-girl/DP and etc.

--TRFA 18:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Why? I fail to see the rationale behind this. The infobox should be the core encyclopedic information and not a laundry list of stuff about the actress, especially about things such as pubic hair and work which can and likely will change over time. Sorry... but until someone can give me a damn good reason why, I'm pulling these two fields out. Tabercil 22:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm with you here, Tabercil. The infobox should be as concise as possible. Details on the subject belong in the body of the article. That's my view anyway. Dekkappai 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I just re-added a field for Eurobabeindex, which someone erroneously removed as linkspam. I also added fields for the EGAFD and BGAFD databases. Iamcuriousblue 22:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Spouse(s)

Seems a section should be there to list spouses as well. I think that is relevant information and it is there on infoboxes for people such as actors.Diemunkiesdie 06:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I added this section myself (it was hella difficult, that was one of the messiest template pages I have ever seen. Everything runs together!).. If people disagree with adding it, im sure you guys know how to remove it! :) Diemunkiesdie 06:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Blood

I know from the discussion above that sometimes blood type can be considered important. I still removed it per WP:BLP. From the ones I checked it never is sourced in an infobox. If it is so impiortant for those articles who need it, it can always be added in the text with a reference. Garion96 (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly in WP:BLP does it mention that, please? Unlike, say, date of birth, which is mentioned in WP:BLP as having a potential for Identity theft, blood type is neither particularly controversial nor prone to use for identity verification. It's more like height or hair color in that respect. Specifically, it seems to be of interest for Japanese erotic actresses. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My two-bits: Blood type is considered an important vital statistic in articles on Japanese models. See: Japanese blood type theory of personality. In all the articles on Japanese models/actresses I've worked on, the blood type is sourced through reliable databases or profiles on the subjects. Dekkappai 19:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a case of I don't like it. The topic itself and the overfilling of infoboxes and not WP:BLP, if so than never mind of course. But blood type, to me, seems kind of personal information and and the couple of cases where I checked it, it wasn't sourced. Not that you see much sourcing in infoboxes anyway. Garion96 (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that the tendency should be to reduce the size of infoboxes, but the blood-type is pretty basic information, from my Japanese-centered editing perspective. Admittedly, it probably isn't that important for non-Japanese subjects. My preference would be to remove fields like "Sexual orientation," "natural bust," "hair color," and others that are contentious, variable, and often OR. Dekkappai 20:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well "hair color" I can agree should probably be pulled out, given how trivial is it to change it {Porn star: "I'm bored with how I look. Anyone got a bottle of peroxide I can borrow?"). I would also argue that "shoe size" should also be pulled out on the basis of "how the hell is this piece of information encyclopedic?!??!?" <G> "Natural bust" and "blood" are both marginal and I'm inclinded to keep them more from inertia than anything else, but if someone can give a solid reason why it should go, I won't mourn it. Sexual orientation for me also falls into the same category as "natural bust" but if we do pull this out of the infobox, then I feel we must make sure the article itself clearly makes mention of her orientation if it is not heterosexual, and back that mention up with a cite! Tabercil 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The one thing about the "natural bust" field that irritated me is that, in the past (not lately), I've seen it lead to some "Those aren't real!" "Yes they are!" edit-warring or talk-page arguments. I thought the whole thing could be easily avoided by just not saying one way or the other, without a conclusive source. (And, following OR/Sourcing policies, I believe in leaving the field blank without a source.) But the "natural bust" field in the infobox seems tempt editors to put in a "yes" or a "no" just based on personal opinion if sourcing is not found. Dekkappai 23:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We're drifting off the "Blood" topic, aren't we? I've changed my opinion on the "natural bust" issue, I'm afraid, when I worked on citing the Trinity Loren article; it does seem to be an important enough issue that it is discussed in articles, and can be sourced. And for the Viper (porn star) article it's crucial... In general I don't like to delete other people's work, so since someone added it, I wouldn't want to delete it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with infoboxes (for me) is that so rarely they are sourced. People just add their stuff on it. Also of course when in prose in articles, but still less IMO. Things like sexual orientation/natural bust do need sources. In Viper (porn star) natural bust is important, but I still don't see why it specifically also has to be in the infobox. Even if, in this case, it is sourced. Garion96 (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the need for sourcing infobox information. I always put a <ref>Infobox data from: </ref> after the first significant item in the infobox. I think you'll see that in any of the Category:Japanese porn stars articles, unless I've missed one. Not to make the infobox even larger, but I've often wondered if it would be better to have a "Source for infobox data" field in it as well, to make the need for a source more obvious, and easier to cite. Dekkappai 17:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh; actually, I see infobox fields as a standard place to find things that are generally important to most, or at least many, articles. Relatively few other articles discuss "implant schizophrenia" :-), but I think breast measurements are important to most fans, and, I've grown to realize (in doing the sourcing for Trinity Loren) that the "natural or not" issue is important to a noticeable subgroup.

Anyway, back to Blood - are you convinced, if not completely, at least to the level that you will grudgingly accept it be restored? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not completely no, nevertheless I reverted.

Regarding infoboxes, I just prefer actual text prose over infoboxes. The same reason why I am not a fan of flags in infoboxes, people can read instead of looking at pretty flags. :) Garion96 (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes in general

I always looked at infoboxes as a brief summary of important points or bits of info from throughout the article. Therefore, anything in the infobox ought to be mentioned at some point in the article, and then referenced there. Just my ¥2. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Male adult bio

I suggest this template be merged with Male adult bio and rename to Adult bio. The only think in the template that does not apply to men as well is the highly questionable "Natural bust" item. Neitherday 01:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's doable. But first it would be wise to create a master template to ensure everything were to go smoothly in the process of a merge. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. I have changed the merger notice to suggest merging to the new Template:Adult bio instead. Neitherday 15:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Iamcuriousblue 04:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Photos

I've just tried to add an image to Holly McCall, using the "photo" field in the template. I'm more used to editing pages about rock albums or people, where the equivalent field does not require the File:filename.jpg format, just the filename.jpg. I don't know if there are technical reasons for this but is it worth fixing? Also, I'm not sure my non-free use rationale fits in with the project so I'd be grateful if someone will check it out here [1] and advise. Thanks --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The photo you have is probably going to be deleted, since it's not used to describe the movie it came from, but rather the performer. Which is admittedly flaky ground, but flaky enough where an admin will air on the side of deletion. See: WP:NONFREE for details on that.

As for the template, it could be changed over to only enter the filename sans prefix... but since this template is so widely used now on several hundred articles, a bot or something will have to go through and fix its implementation on pages, so as to avoid breaking the template's use on these pages. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 00:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. This is Kafkaesque- this article is a biog. The only way we have of knowing anything about the subject's appearance is an image drawn from her work. But this is a copyrighted work, not that pornographers really care about others' copyrights anyway. Despite the fact that we use a mere 1/100,800 of this work, we breach copyright. And the article suffers as a result, having no pictures. "And what is the use", Alice wondered, "of a book without pictures?" --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 11:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't panic. It's not guaranteed that the picture will be deleted, given that the performer is reclusive or downright missing. However, the article needs more sources saying that. Right now, we seem to be merely saying that we don't know what happened to her. We need a source saying that no one knows what happened to her, even though several have tried. Compare Bambi Woods, which does say that. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Awards field?

How about an awards field, as in Template:Infobox actor? Dekkappai 00:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that myself. Iamcuriousblue 02:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be too much data to fit in an infobox. Valrith 07:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If it started out collapsed I don't think it would be that much of a problem. However, if we do add awards, which awards do we put in there besides the obvious biggies (AVN, XRCO)? Tabercil 14:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see it started collapsed, as in the general actor template. As for which awards to include-- I'd think any award given, relevant to the profession, is worthy of mention in a biography. Whether that award is "Notable" is another matter. But not every fact mentioned in a biography needs to contribute to passing Wiki's concept (of the moment) of "notability" does it? Dekkappai 16:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I hasten to add: Since I deal with the Japanese subjects, where award-giving seems to be quite sparse, I see no immediate problem with listing all the awards. However, if some subjects do have an overwhelming list of awards, then we put it as a sub-section of the article, if not a separate article. And that can be noted in the infobox field. Dekkappai 16:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

New Field?-Race? or Ancestry?

Do we need a Race or Ancestry field on the infobox, since i really think that having a box with "ethnicity" isnt very precise, and you find people putting in more detailed information in the ethnicity field anyway.

for eg: If someone if Asian, they could be "Asian" ethnicity but Also race/ancestry:"Indian" or "Japanese", or somone could be "Hispanic" or 'Latin' ethnicty but Race/ancestry:European, African, Native American. People said not to use the terms white or Black, fair enough,but then why use the skin color field. Using caucasion is usually wrong, even though it is used in parts of Europe and the US in the same way meaning "white American" (often used interchangeably and incorrectly with "Caucasian American"...caucasion often includes Middle eastern peoples and some South Asians also. Examples:

| Race = European? or White?  or <br>

| ethnicity = Latina  <br>
| ancestry = German 

| ethnicity = Asian <br>
| ancestry = Bangladeshi  

| ethnicity = Cuban <br>
| ancestry = Spanish  

'Could be more helpful' and presice, than some other fields like skin color or shoe size, in the infobox. What are peoples opinions??....if you agree please help adding it.. Hispania 16:38, 3 Novemeber 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the difference, frankly. Of course we want the most precise information available: "Bangladeshi" rather than "Asian". If we have the more precise classification, we don't really need the less precise one. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

All the race/ethnicity thing is so very subjective, culturally... What constitutes "White," "Asian," etc. is different from country to country, and from time to time within the same country. I'm tempted to say just leave the field out, but then that's not helpful either... So, let's just ignore the issue until someone starts an edit war over it. ;) Dekkappai 18:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

True, i do understand peoples views on "If we have the more precise classification, we don't really need the less precise one" and if we know their nationality from birth and then putting the ancestry field as an option to use , since i think if it was there, people would use it, i know i would use the field myself. There are many other fields like skin color and blood type that are very regularly not filled in, and at the end of the day most people dont use all the given fields, but the majority. I do agree though that ethnicty wouldnt be used as much, if ancestry was more precise.....& think that people put the ancestry in the ethnicity field which doesnt seems correct to me....worth to add it?..I dont want to start an edit war haha. Hispania 19:19, 5 Novemeber 2007 (UTC)

Even categories like "Japanese porn star" get to be tricky... Because I edit in the field of Japanese erotic cinema, I consider someone like Fujiko Kano an "American porn star." Her nationality (place of birth and (I presume) citizenship) may be Japanese, but since she appears in American productions, she falls outside of my area of editing interest. Still, I don't have strong enough feelings on the subject to risk an edit war over including the "Japanese porn star" category on her page. On the other hand, there are European and caucasian-American actresses who acted in Japanese productions, who I would consider "Japanese porn stars" even if their ancestry is not Japanese... Just further thoughts without really saying yes/no to the field. I guess I'm divided. Wouldn't bother me if it were there, doesn't bother me that it's not. Dekkappai 19:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Death location?

Since there's an item for location of birth, can somebody add a location of death, similar to the "straight" bio infoboxes? Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Adult Web Movie Database

Anyone else think this would be a good addition as it covers data none of the others do? We've got almost half a dozen that cover DVD credits (IMDB, IAFD, Adult Film Database, BGAFD, EGAFD) and one with both DVD and Web credits but limited only to Eastern European girls.

There isn't one that covers a wide range of web credits and the Adult Web Database does that not only for Eastern European girls but All of Europe, North America and girls from other continents so surely that would be a better addition than 5 that cover DVD credits?

Just a thought to improve it. BladedSquirrel 23:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to check this out, Blade-- but does the site cover Japan, or any other Asian countries?... Dekkappai 23:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that it covers some Asian stars by searching for the few I know but how widespread the coverage is of Asian countries I'm not sure. BladedSquirrel 00:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Alexa and Quantcast, the site isn't even in the top 100,000 internet websites, so I don't agree to its inclusion in the infobox. Perhaps as an external link, but not in the infobox. If it becomes more widespread, then I can see it. (As it stands now, there's simply too much in the infobox, particularly in terms of external links.) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 00:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see what you're saying Joe but I was going on the basis that there are so many geared to DVD credits when IAFD would suffice and nothing for web credits (unless you count the limited EBI). According to the stats on the webpage it covers "1,779 pornstars in 16,538 scenes on 360 websites" so I just thought it might be more valuable than having just IMDB, IAFD and AFDB all of which list virtually the same data. BladedSquirrel 01:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

True. The issue is that all these databases are commonly used. Again, I don't have a problem with adding a link to the pages themselves... it's just the infobox. Let's just see how well it works, and if it does, then we can always add it later. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Where do you think would be the best place to add it? External links I imagine or the body of the article under the filmography header? BladedSquirrel 01:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

External links. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

-- No, I just checked it out and couldn't see any coverage at all of Asian countries, only some coverage of performers of Asian descent in non-Asian countries. If it did cover this area, which lacks reliable coverage in English, I might have leaned to giving it some prominence. But no, I agree with Joe-- the infobox is big enough as is. -- Dekkappai (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've added to the external links of a few star pages as Joe suggested but I have no clue how we can track how well it works. BladedSquirrel (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was going to suggest adding Which Pornstar to the list of databases, since they list quite a few models that Eurogirl Index doesn't and vice versa. (Which porn star also lists some American models, in spite of its listing as a European model database.) But anyway, I also quite like this AWMD database, though at this point its a bit underdeveloped and doesn't have nearly as complete a listing of actresses or websites as it should have. That may change in the future if it gets a lot of people contributing information. I wouldn't worry too much about adding new databases to the template, since use of any particular database is optional. (I rarely if ever list AFDB, for example, since there's almost no information there that isn't already in IAFD or EGAFD.) Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying in regards to being underdeveloped with incomplete listings of actresses/websites. I just came across it and thought it might be a good option due to offering information the others didn't. I think Joe is right though, it would be better to go with sticking it in the external links area until/unless it gets bigger and as you say if it grows in the future to be more complete.

I don't see how this site can be considered okay. It's so terribly commercial. You do realize that every single one of those "outside" links are links to affiliate programs? This is nothing more than a collection of affiliate galleries. If you allow a site like this you may as well allow freeones.com, pornstarbook.com, pinkpornstars.com, terababes.com, dailyniner.com and a host of a million other "gallery" sites. You'll also notice that both iafd and afdb are tracking this "web gallery" data already Pinworm (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

While can see your point, it is not advertising any less than IAFD who have affiliate galleries in profile pages, links to DVD shops for each movie listing to buy it, advertising banners, price searches that credit them money when they lead a link to a DVD sale. Adult Film Database have links to affiliate galleries, DVD shops to earn them money etc. Eurobabeindex have affiliate banners, affiliate links to the websites and galleries, affiliate links to DVD shops.

It is an inevitable thing that within these sites will be advertising and affiliate links. Are you suggesting the removal of IAFD, AFDB and EBI from the listing because of all of those money making links?

We are looking purely at whether they offer an information source not covered in a Wikipedia article. All of those do that, which is why all of the commercial things that no doubt earn them a lot of money are ignored and they are still included. BladedSquirrel (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the big difference I think is if you take away the revenue generation (the ads, the affiliate links, links to dvd shops) on sites like iafd or afdb you still have content there. There is still value in the site. If you take away the affiliate links for web movie database you have nothing, because that's all it is affiliate links. Pinworm (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh by the way, since you seem to be the one adding the majority of these links, can I ask if you ever actually clicked on the links for a particular actor? I looked at the entry for Tory Lane (which you added) and 4 out of 5 links are galleries that don't even have Tory Lane on them. What's the value in that? Pinworm (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are not seeing what the information is. It is not the links. If you go onto Tory Lane on IAFD there is a huge list of DVDs she appears in, if you go onto Tory Lane on AWMDB there is a huge list of websites she appears on. The information is her website credits much like IAFD, AFDB and IMDB all show her DVD credits.

For instance on Tory Lane's the information is that she is credited on '48 websites in 60 scenes' and it lists each of those websites and details of the scenes - that is the information that can't be found in the Wikipedia article it has nothing to do with the links which we can't stop and which are an inevitible part of these websites, I thought that was quite clear by what the site does - lists her and other stars' webographies.

In regards to 'I looked at the entry for Tory Lane (which you added) and 4 out of 5 links are galleries that don't even have Tory Lane on them' you are aware that websites don't always list every actress on the website in the tour page don't you? But I did as you said, went on American Daydreams - she was on the first page, went on Big Wet Asses - she was on the second page, went on Pornstars Like It Big, clicked the letter T and she's all over the page. It wasn't too difficult to find the information it provides and there isn't even any need to click those outbound links in order to get to the information of her webography and the details of the scenes. BladedSquirrel (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so every link is just a link to a tour page and that's why I can't see Tory Lane? So that's your idea of good content? Links to tour pages? So, instead of linking to the individual pages of an actress on IMDB, we can just link to the homepage? Because we know Tory Lane is in there somewhere, but we can't point out exactly where. Isn't the whole idea of wikipedia to point people directly to content? Heck we may as well point to google queries, because "it wouldn't be too difficult to find the information".

Where is she on the Altered Assholes link? The Anal Lickfest link? You think the tiny picture of Tory on ArnachyArchives is okay when there are hundreds of other pictures of other actors? If you really want to track where actors are on websites I'd much rather see freeones being linked. When I look at a Tory Lane page on freeones I'm then one click away from more Tory Lane content. I don't have to browse various tours that may or may not have Tory Lane featured. Pinworm (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing the information. On a actresses page you see a bunch of websites listed and a details link to the right of each, click in that link and you find the information. It's nothing like Freeones because Freeones has a list of affiliate galleries including duplicates and doesn't provide information whereas the Adult Web Movie Database one provides a list of websites a star appears on and the details of what the scene(s) contain. For instance for Tory Lane it give the information that...

• She has 2 scenes on American Daydreams one with the episode name Exercise Instructor, a FF scene with Sandra Shine featuring 69 position, 1 MF scene called The Devil Inside featuring anal.
• She has 3 scenes on Baby Got Boobs, 1 MF with Anal, deepthroat, gag and throatf*ck, 1 MF with deepthroat, 1 MF with anal.
• She has 2 lesbian scenes of Four Finger Club one with Julia Bond, one with Lauren Phoenix.
• She has a FFM scene on Porn Stars Like It Big with Trina Michaels featuring 69 position
• She has a MF scene on Men In Pain featuring BDSM and sex toys.

I'm not going to do a list of everything they list but that gives you an idea of the information it provides. The outward links can easily be ignored by visitors but there is valid information within the site which isn't too difficult to find. BladedSquirrel (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Merged?

Has this template been put out to pasture in place of "Adult bio?" Someone seems to be replacing them all in the articles I watch, Yua Aida for example. I see no difference in the end-result, so it's no big deal, but I seem to have missed the discussion/decision... Dekkappai (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Another question

...to be unanswered? Has the "Weight" field been disqualified? And if not (it's still on the template) why is this being removed from Japanese subjects as "subtrivia", when Japanese profiles invariably include this bit of data? Dekkappai (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody's weight is going to change next time they eat a large meal. It's not worth recording unless it's significantly higher or lower than the norm. --TS 18:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but these models-- I'm talking about the Japanese specifically (I don't know if weight is a standard part of U.S. profiles)-- have set profiles which have set weights. I can tell you the official weight in tese profiles rarely changes unless, as you point out, the gain or loss is very notable. Dekkappai (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Set profiles put out as part of the publicity for a model, idol, pop star or whatever, should never be considered a reliable source. Blood group, weight, etc, originating from such sources are not verifiable. --TS 18:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The profiles are as much part of the package as the biographical data, filmographies, etc. Here are two such profiles:

http://xxx.xcity.jp/idol/detail/?id=850&style=simple

http://i-dic.dorachan.com/data?mztki_00

You'll note both had blood type, both have weight. This is standard in Japanese magazines also. Dekkappai (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See my comments below about verifiability. --TS 19:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a special AV idol could be created. That way we won't need (or have) these parameters added to other than Japanese adult performers. Garion96 (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, since the data of interest does seem to be culturally specific. (I doubt any U.S. model's blood type is of interest to very many people looking for information on the subject.) Though I'd suggest a more general Japanese idol template, since the fields between the specifically AV and the gravure, & other idols would be pretty similar. If other people think this is a good idea, it might be worth bringing up at Project Japan... Dekkappai (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We would still need verifiable sources for this trivial data--and it's unlikely that we ever shall. Weight records are notoriously unreliable (as are bust measurements) and the Japanese theories of personality and blood group make faking of blood group (which is hardly likely to be routinely checkable without access to confidential medical records) likely. Since this information is intrinsically trivial and clearly unreliable, we should simply stop trying to record it. --TS 19:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is all well and good for political figures or whomever, but this template applies to adult entertainment people. It reports data on public personas, and these sources verify those public personas. Names, even birthdates are often fictitious. Are we supposed to dig into medical, or official government records on these people? Now adding the cultural element into the mix-- Digging into actual personal information in Japan, to my understanding, is illegal and considered violation of privacy. And even if we do so, what name do we choose when just an average Korean person, for example-- not even a person picking a stage name-- can have their name changed by a fortune-teller for "good luck"? Birthdate? How do we know that the family hasn't mis-reported a birth day--or even year-- for a "good luck", which is, in my experience, quite common? We go by what the best sources say about the public figure. And since verifiability over "truth", I believe, is a policy at Wikipedia, this is perfectly appropriate. Dekkappai (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that often a porn star's published date of birth is not reliable. In such cases we should not reprint the fictional date published by their agency, but should simply remain silent. None of the arguments above provides us with an opt-out for the verifiability policy. --TS 20:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well we've been side-tracked a bit. The original question is on the appropriateness of the Weight field (and Blood Type). I still say (with regard to the Japanese subjects), both are standard parts of the performers' profiles in nearly every Japanese source on the subject, and are therefore appropriate. If editors in the non-Japanese subjects think that they are not useful for their subjects, maybe we do need a separate template? Dekkappai (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If we don't have a reliable source for these bits of trivia (and we don't) then we can't put them in Wikipedia. That's quite apart from whether, as trivia, they have any place in an article. --TS 20:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Our verifiabily policy doesn't prohibit citing primary sources to support non-contentious claims about themselves. Giving WP:V as a reason to remove the blood type from those profiles sounds like overzealous wikilawyering. Bikasuishin (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The precise argument against including this kind of trivia in an article is firstly that it's the tiniest trivia imaginable, and secondly that it's the kind of trivia that people may have a motive to fabricate. This makes it extremely unlikely that such data will ever be fit for Wikipedia. --TS 03:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is no one else trouble with the implications of the above statement? Specifically: All data on adult performers, being "unreliable" ("reliable" sources do not cover such subjects) should be removed? Dekkappai (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In theory, he's right. Every non-contentious statement placed in Wikipedia needs a source (from the "This page in a nutshell" blurb on WP:V: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." (emphasis mine)). It's when the rubber meets the road that's difficult. Take something simple like a person's birthdate. There should be a cite given for any given person's birth date given how often things like that get vandalized on Wikipedia (making someone older or younger)... yet take a look at the articles for Angelina Jolie, Woody Guthrie or Calvin Coolidge. All are featured articles yet not one of them lists a cite for the birth date. Tabercil (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The birthdates of all those people can be challenged and, if they cannot be reliably sourced, should be removed. This is not a problem in any way, it's how Wikipedia works. --TS 02:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If someone was going around putting {{check}} tags on all of those birthdates, let alone remove them pending explicit citation, she would probably be chastised for violating WP:POINT. Bikasuishin (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it's when you go to turn theory into reality that's when you run into fun. My thinking? Non-controversial things aka things not likely to be challenged, which is what most of the stuff in an infobox is anyway, can go without a cite. If you can provide one, bonus. Tabercil (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The original reason given for their removal was "subtrivia", and we're being diverted into a Truth versus Verifiability argument here. (And Wikipedia stresses the latter, rather than the philosophically unattainable former that Tony seems to be advocating.) I think Bikasuishin's point is also worth underlining-- The data in these Japanese infoboxes are sourced, unlike the data in infoboxes in so many other articles. So why is the data, and only some of the data, being removed from these infoboxes? Dekkappai (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that going around questioning unverified birthdates would be a very, very useful thing to do. It's certainly not violating Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (sometimes cited as WP:POINT) because none of us wants false information about birth data on Wikipedia.

Unlike birth data, blood group is firstly non-public information and secondly of no significance except in a medical context. The theory that it has something to do with character is about as credible as phrenology. --TS 20:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The accuracy of Japanese blood type theory of personality is entirely irrelevant to this template or any articles on Japanese pop-culture personalities. The fact is that for decades, blood group has been a part of Japanese pop-culture profiles. You're free to try to convince the Japanese that this is pure poppycock-- and I wish you good luck with that project--but pushing a POV is not part of Wikipedia's mission. As long as we're going to cover Japanese subjects, we should not intentionally exclude data that is considered an essential part of the Japanese profiles. To do so would be to force our cultural biases onto subjects from another culture. I agree it's irrelevant to the U.S. subjects, which is why I agree with a separate Japanese template. Dekkappai (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Under the Verifiability policy, we must certainly exclude unverifiable data. The fact that it originated from a model's publicity pack doesn't add to its verifiability and certainly doesn't speak to its credibility as a primary source. --TS 23:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I think this might do the trick. After all, blood type is very much a vital statistic to the Japanese, and presumably they would make as much of an effort to ensure that the correct information is out there as we in the West care about birth dates. And as Dekkappai says, it's a uniquely Japanese concept. Tabercil (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is not a Japanese Wikipedia. While it is conceivable that a Japanese Wikipedia might consider blood group (which cannot be verified) to be significant, English Wikipedia may not. I've seen no suggestion that it does. The suggestion that blood type is "very much a vital statistic to the Japanese" is somewhat contradicted by the fact that the Japanese blood type theory of personality is of recent provenance (less than a century old), and its current popularity owes nothing to any original scientific credibility it might have had in the twenties. --TS 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a hunch that Japanese pornographic film is of even more recent provenance. What exactly is the point of further discussion? If blood type is attributed to a WP:RS, it is no more or less trivial than a performer's measurements or whether she has a natural bust. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[Bouncing leftwards] Are you saying that nothing that is reliably sourced is more or less trivial than anything else? (That would seem to imply that various genocides are no more or less important than the release of this or that pop CD single.) Or that nothing that is reliably sourced on a given subject is more or less trivial than any other on the same subject? (That would seem to imply that the name of Dubya's dog is no more or less important than his master's adventures in Iraq.) Or something else, and if so, what? ¶ For many tarento who have few obvious talents (and arguably also for a few who have), tit size is very obviously of importance, and for evidence of this I need only direct you to the front covers of many of the magazines on display in those few Tokyo station platform kiosks that haven't yet closed down. (Call that "original research" if you please.) It's safe to infer relationships, however tenuous, among "reliably sourced" dimensions, actual dimensions, and (post-photoshoplifting) cover-photo dimensions. Meanwhile -- unless you happen to be a subscriber to the laughable "Japanese blood type theory of personality" -- blood type means absolutely fuck all (and very few people are likely to have seen evidence of the type). ¶ It's true that blood type appears to be regarded as very important by large numbers of harmless if naïve (or rather dimwitted?) fans, and by ja:Wikipedia. It's also true that this "theory" is complete horseshit and that en:Wikipedia purports to be an encyclopedia. It seems to me that something calling itself an encyclopedia shouldn't be in the business of unnecessarily signalling tacit approval of pseudoscience. Am I fatally out of step with Wikipedia's "anti-elitist" respect for received ideas? -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC) (tweaked 05:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

Who said anything about Bush's dog?!? We're talking about characteristics by which porn stars distinguish themselves from one another. If blood type is considered significant by naïve and dim-witted consumers of Japanese pornography, then it's non-trivial. Are hair color or eye color important, especially when wigs and colored contact lenses (not to mention hair dye) make those "facts" questionable? They're in the template, and I haven't heard anybody saying that they should be removed as useless trivia. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You seemed to claim that blood type was as important for cheesecake models as tit size. Your argument seemed (and still seems) peculiar but obscure; Dubya's dog seemed a good way of probing just what the argument was.

Are hair color or eye color important / Not particularly, no. But a cheesecake model demonstrably has this or that colored hair at any one time. For those interested in her appearance, it's important. Her blood isn't important for her appearance or anything else at issue here.

Some way above, Dekkappai writes: The fact is that for decades, blood group has been a part of Japanese pop-culture profiles. You're free to try to convince the Japanese that this is pure poppycock-- and I wish you good luck with that project--but pushing a POV is not part of Wikipedia's mission. As long as we're going to cover Japanese subjects, we should not intentionally exclude data that is considered an essential part of the Japanese profiles. To do so would be to force our cultural biases onto subjects from another culture.

I can't be bothered to try to convince anyone that this is pure poppycock. Scientific studies have shown that it's pure poppycock; people are of course free to ignore these and continue to believe the poppycock. Neither can I be bothered to suggest removal of such "information" from ja:Wikipedia. But as long as en:Wikipedia is going to cover Japanese subjects, I don't see why it should intentionally include "data" that's only of significance to believers of poppycock. To do so would be to pander to and give implicit support to pseudoscience: pushing a PoV. -- Hoary (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC) (tweaked 05:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

I don't think we give implicit support to Western superstitions when we discuss whether U.S. Senators believe the Eucharist consists of divine substance only or think bread and wine are left in there too. But including that sort of fluff and not the one we're talking about here would be systemic bias. Bikasuishin (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now that's an interesting comment. You're referring to the last but two of | relations | children | residence | alma_mater | occupation | profession | net worth | religion | signature | website, I suppose. Yes, this bread and wine, flesh and blood stuff is complete twaddle to me, too. However, US politicians work hard to be elected and reelected, and more or less frequently refer to their "Faith" (capital "F", please); I think I've read that if a US politician doesn't do so, then "Focus on the Family" -- all these "'F' words"! -- and the rest of the right-thinking booboisie join ranks to stop that politician even more effectively than if he/she were pigmented, gay, a non-consumer of hamburgers, or even [shudder] a fluent speaker of French. (Or are there any atheist Senators?) I mean, people actually vote according to this kind of thing. Now, while it's pretty hard for me to speculate about the buying/renting patterns of Japanese porn/cheesecake consumers and I may easily be wrong, I have particular trouble imagining that they select according to blood type. According to body type, face, clothing, etc., yes, but blood? (Or do these double as splatter movies?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about porn consumption habits in Japan either, and certainly don't contend that the blood type of AV performers is as serious business there as that F-word thing is in the US, but it's difficult not to observe that blood type has been a requisite part of Japanese pop culture profiles for idols, singers, actors, etc. for quite some time. I'm not sure what bearing this has on commerce, but I'm not convinced it really matters (at any rate, it comes up in speech now and then; an idol telling another: "Oh you're such a B-type!" on a radio show is no rare occurrence). My point was that discarding this sort of cultural idiosyncrasies as irrelevant and trivial insofar as they're alien to us is exactly the mechanism that leads to systemic bias. Dekkappai's proposal of a specific template for Japanese idols, adult or not, sounds like a good idea to counter this. Bikasuishin (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is really getting off the subject. All I'm suggesting is that we avoid routinely recording trivia that is not verifiable, just as we avoid recording non-trivia that is not verifiable. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will agree with Hoary's position that the importance of all facts, within the universal scheme of things, is not equal. Yes, certainly, the trivia of a Japanese model's blood type does pale in comparison to data on, say, Auschwitz. You'll get no argument from me there. But in spite of Hoary's next implication, I really can't see that a Japanese model's bust-size stacks up very high in importance relative to Auschwitz either. (With the exception, arguably, of Fuko-chan...) Neither can I see that an episode of Family Guy or The Simpsons is of much historical import in comparison with... oh... Napoleon Bonaparte. But they've got their own articles. We could go on making absurdly inappropriate comparisons, and this might be fun for a while, and maybe even win us an argument, but it would still avoid the question: What points of data are generally considered important within the subject of Japanese idols? For decades the standard profile seen in nearly every Japanese idol magazine layout, every Japanese idol video cover, etc. has been: Name, Birthday, Blood Type, Height, B-W-H, HomeTown, and then maybe some variable, like Weight and Hobbies-- often in that order.

Now, I'm not saying Blood type is important in articles on U.S. subjects. This is why I like the proposal of creating a separate Japanese template. Sure, theoretically, we could probably find a U.S. subject's Blood type, somewhere, but the sourcing-- the profiles, the articles on U.S. subjects-- do not routinely give this information, and therefore it probably is "subtrivia" in these cases. However this is not the case with Japanese subjects. Sourcing on these Japanese subjects give this information not sometimes, but nearly always. I'm in complete agreement that this is an odd and illogical cultural difference, and maybe even STOOOOPID. But this difference in cultural outlook is one of the things that many of us find interesting about Korea and Japan. I've spent nearly 15 fascinating, fun and, at times, frustrating years married to just this kind of different cultural outlook. (Yes, I had to get my blood type checked, and even a Korean name made by a fortune-teller before the ceremony. But, for the record, is there still an American shameless enough to stand up and say that there are no STOOOOPID elements in American culture?) Anyway, we are not here to judge the STOOOOPIDITY of this kind of thing, and to pick and choose what we think is important and what we think is STOOOOPID. We are here to cover the subjects in a NPOV manner based on the sources on the subject. All of the sourcing on Japanese idols clearly says Blood Type is relevant to the subjects. It belongs in an article on the subject, and a template, rather than a discussion within the text of the article, seems the best place for it. Dekkappai (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Items like bust size, cup size, and weight, are also problematic. If they can be reliably sourced, then their cultural importance may be enough for us to record them routinely. Weight is the most obvious problem here--it varies from meal to meal. Bust and cup size are also subject to change, and such information also be manuipulated for publicity purposes. These are areas where I would be reluctant to see Wikipedia continue to record information that is known to have severe verifiability problems. This has nothing to do with stupidity. Stupid things may still be recorded in an encyclopedia if they have cultural importance (for instance, the widely derided beliefs of David Icke). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Japanese idol template?

Per the suggestion above, I've started work on a Japanese-specific template HERE. If anyone wants to comment or help out on it (my first time working on something like this, and I'm stumbling a bit on the code), feel free. This may allow for the removal from this template of fields such as weight, shoe size and blood type, which are generally irrelevant to non-Japanese subjects. Dekkappai (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

An irrelevant field is easily dealt with by not providing it with a value. I don't see a need for a fork because of that. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

True. But these are relevant fields. Not to U.S. subjects, but to Japanese subjects. Hence the fork. Dekkappai (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, where the field is irrelevant it can be omitted. This does not require forking the content (which creates more problems than it solves here). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Orientation?

Here's a question: why is it that this template (plus the related Template:Male adult bio and the generic Template:Adult bio) are the only ones that have Orientation as one of the fields? Given that this is such a magnet for WP:BLP issues, why do we have it here in the first place? If someone can be classified as gay, lesbian or bisexual then we can put that information in the main article where it can get proper treatment. Obviously, what I'm proposing is to pull the field in the first place. Tabercil (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is unimportant in the info box (which is to provide basic information at a quick glance) to have this information. If relevant to the BLP, it can be included in the article itself. Also, how do we cite the information? Besides, it's not being universally applied, thereby affecting the overall quality of Wikipedia. Newguy34 (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well as it stands the folks who see the infoboxes are member of WP:P* (like myself) and we hew the line on needing reliable sources for contentious stuff like real names and orientations. But that's kinda off the topic. Tabercil (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the field is useless. Just about every female actress participates in "girl/girl" scenes, which has led some editors to enter "bi" in the field without providing a source. I say kill it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing it go away. I'm not a fan of the natural bust field either but I guess I should leave that for another conversation. Dismas|^(talk) 20:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. Field's gone then. Tabercil (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Per the bot request, the parameter should now be removed from all existing transclusions of the template. If any were missed, please let me know so I can track down the bug in case I have opportunity to use this code again. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 14:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Freeones

I added a field for Freeones, I have been visiting Freeones since 1998 and think they now have so much information that they deserve a place on the pornstar's wiki pages since there's good information there. Wiki112211 08:50, 03 December 2008 (UTC)

• I could not possibly disagree more. This site appears to be nothing more than a porn gallery. There's no "information" there that I can readily discern. Valrith (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

References and the homepage field

Anyone know of a way to put a reference on this field in such a way that it doesn't break the field? I've tried "http://www.somesite.somedomain<ref></ref>" and "http://www.somesite.somedomain/ <ref></ref>", but both end up formatting as "[1] Official web site", where only the "[1]" portion is an active link... Valrith (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)