Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Rename this project "Wikipedia censorship of pornographic filmographies"

When factual, verified, relevant information is excluded from an article, it is censorship as defined by Webster's Dictionary. The only question to ponder here is whether a porn actor's complete filmography is relevant. Its relevance is self-evident; without the acting, the individual wouldn't have a Wikipedia article to begin with. As long as the titles are verified through the usual procedures, there is no logical reason to omit them from an article other than to exercise censorship.

I recognize that people might be squeamish about, say, Matthew Sanchez's "Tijuana Toilet Tramps," a film that we can reasonably presume was not a documentary about the pressing issue of undocumented immigration. Rather than omit titles, they should be listed in a separate section, as they are with, say, Katherine Hepburn, an actor in non-porn films. To answer the squeamishness issue, I'd suggest that the listings be handled in such a way as to require an additional click, along with a notice that the forthcoming material could be objectionable to some readers.

The alternative is for Wikipedia to make an exception to its censorship policy. I would oppose doing that, but if Wikipedia does make an exception I urge in the strongest possible terms that Wikipedia be honest about what it's doing and not parade any euphemisms (such as "editorial self-restraint" or "lack of notability" or "undue weight") in front of readers or otherwise twist the definitions of words. Omitting relevant, verified facts is censorship, plain and simple. If Wikipedia is going to engage in censorship, have the dignity not to lie to people about that. Pwok 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break! The fact that complete filmographies are not listed has nothing to do with censorship or squeamishness. It has everything to do with the fact that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia doesn't list complete filmographies for non-porn actors and filmmakers either. Instead, links are provided to IMDB, IAFD, EGAFD, etc, where readers can go and find full filmographies. That's Wikipedia policy and it makes perfect sense, IMO. Iamcuriousblue 15:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, what Icb wrote. Katharine Hepburn is a four-time Academy Award-winning actress, considered by some the greatest American actress of all time. Her filmography stretches over 60 years. It is darn likely that the least of the films she has been in has been seen by more people than the sum of all the people that have seen any of the films of Matt Sanchez. He is no Katharine Hepburn. This has nothing to do with censoring film titles, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored - if a notable film had an obscene title, we'd write it. In fact, I made a pornographic filmography article myself Jenna Jameson chronology of performances, when our articl on Jenna Jameson got too long even when restricted to listing solely the award-winning films (she's won a lot of awards). When Matt Sanchez's films get that kind of coverage, feel free to list them all in his or a separate article. This isn't a judgment on quality or content, solely on the notice each film has gotten. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It is flatly untrue that complete filmographies aren't listed for other actors. Katherine Hepburn is an apt example. I have seen no proposal to limit her filmography to six. Let's use another actor, Robert Mitchum. Has anyone proposed shortening his filmography, which currently runs more than 100 films on Wikipedia? Nope, not at all.

The only "project" is to censor the filmgraphies of porn actors. For some reason, listing their work is held to be somehow burdensome, when in fact the only thing it "burdens" is the sensibilities of Wikipedians who are shocked, just shocked, that there is a whole industry devoted to the depiction of people taking their clothes off and squirting bodily fluids all over the place while saying, in the memorable words of Jeff Stryker, costumed as an Indian while ramming an unverifiable number of inches of manmeat into the quivering lovehole of a man who had been costumed as a U.S. cavalry officer, "Take it all. Take it all, white boy."

Thomas Bowdler would be proud of this project. In fact, there's a word for what it is trying to do: "bowdlerization." Which, by the way, is absurd. There is no way to bowdlerize a porno filmography, so why do it? Server space is unlimited, at least insofar as capacity to list porn movie titles goes. Why six? Why not 60? Why not just one? Or is this, as I suspect, the camel's nose under the tent for a subsequent coup de grace, in which someone justifies removing any titles at all because porn isn't "notable" or its mention is unduly weightful?

As for "notability," by Wikipedia's own "standard" it does not apply to the contents of articles, only to whether a person is notable enough to have an article. To wit: "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines."

So please stop misrepresenting "notability." You and others who support censorship of porn filmographies because some videos aren't notable are twisting the purported "notability" standard.

My comments about this issue are not limited to Matt Sanchez's videos. They apply to all films by all porn actors. For instance, films by Charles Peyton, a/k/a Jeff Stryker, probably generated more sales than films by Katherine Hepburn, not to mention sales of the infamous Jeff Stryker dildo, a piece of American kitsch that someday will take its merited place in the Modern Art Museum. (His dialogue also should be in a Museum of American Humor, but something tells me that the lemon-suckers of Wikipedia, who walk among us with all four cheeks sucked in, would not agree. Could you imagine trying to devote a Wikipedia article to the humor of porn dialogue when references would be limited to six?)

If this censorship project were implemented across Wikipedia, the Charles Peyton filmography would be limited to six titles, while every third-rate movie by the estimable Robert Michum will remain listed for the sole reason that he didn't flash his pecker at the camera. Whether or not someone is "another Katherine Hepburn" is irrelevant. Or it least it ought to be if anyone cares about the so-called "neutrality" "pillar." Either Wikipedia honors its purported "pillars" and "principles," or they are shams. I tend to think they are shams, myself. At the very least, we find out how deep a commitment to a so-called "pillar" or "principle" runs not when adherence dovetails with our love of a great actress, but when adherence includes listing the minor epic, "Buttcrack Mountain."

By the way, I am not doctrinaire about censorship. I'd defend it on occasion. It would be a rare occasion, such as when someone shouts "Fire!" on a crowded adult movie set, but my own view is nevertheless not absolute. One thing I would not do, however, is lie about the issue as Wikipedia has done. At least have the integrity to say what it is you are trying to do here. Pwok 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Impressive speech. Did you notice the part about getting Jenna Jameson to Wikipedia:Featured article? Would you be so kind as to say just a tiny a bit of article improvement does somehow make it out of this project on rare occasions? You can clearly write well, so we'd appreciate your help. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've finally figured out enough of the arcana to feel as if I have the mental space to look at the article. I've done so. What is it that you want me to do now? If it's my opinion you want, I'd say that it's on the lyrical side, and as a result it could be fairly criticized for not being a "neutral" protrait but rather an "affectionate" portrait of the subject. This goes to Wikipedia's editorial voice; as an encyclopedia, I'd aim for a Joe Friday approach. It would be duller but more neutral. It contains a fair amount of material that probably shouldn't be there if the article is to be "neutral." It's well-written for sure, but a little over the top. Pwok 21:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh ... We've got a list of stuff that needs doing... Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Opentasks ... :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat reluctant to assist the Pornography project, given my view that it embodies censorship. I have run smack into this project being cited as justification for omitting the verified Matt Sanchez videography. To "improve" such a project would be complicity in censorship, and I that's not something I'm prepared to do. Pwok 21:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I can figure out Wikipedia's arcane editing nomenclature, I'll do that. Here's a novel idea: Wikipedia should work on ways of making it less of a grad-school project to edit an article. This is much harder than it ought to be. Pwok 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. Wikipedia:Trifecta. The bit about not having a long list of films overwhelming an article is the "undue weight" clause of NPOV - part 1. The bit about working together with other editors and agreeing on whether that really would be overwhelming or not is part 2. Other than that, don't sweat it - part 3. If it really were that hard to edit stuff, we wouldn't have 1,808,876 articles, would we? :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The "undue weight" objection is a transparent dodge. If there's a separate filmography section, as in Robert Mitchum's bio that lists more than 100 films with no objections from you or anyone else, nothing "overwhelms" the article. The fact remains that long filmographies are being contested only for pornography. It is obvious that censorship is at work, and that it's at work regardless of Wikipedia's purported "pillars" and "principles," which are shams. As for the nomenclature that I mentioned, it's not at the policy level. It's at the nuts and bolts editing level.

When I have figured out how to make the changes I've proposed to the Sanchez article and include the sources, I'll check out the other article you want me to look at. The delay isn't a matter of my being dilatory, it's a matter of being in the midst of one article. When I figure out that tangle and can post the changes along with their sources, then I'll move to what you seek my help on. Also, believe it or not, have a real life, and it's calling me to get some stuff done today. So this could take a little while. Pwok 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the films in the Robert Mitchum article are already notable enough to have their own articles. If a porn star were in films of that level of notability, I would have no trouble with listing those films in the bio. But most porn films are not that notable. I think the current guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Filmographies which boils down to, "list 6, unless the films have some other degree of notability", is sufficient. --Elonka 21:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No one has ever answered why six, or why any limitation. As for >100 Mitchum films being notable, that's an out-and-out lie. Also, "notability" doesn't apply to the contents of articles. You keep implying that it does, even when confronted with the text of Wikipedia's notability rule. So much for "pillars" or "principles" at Wikipedia. They are a sham. Not only that, but when Wikipedia decides to exercise censorship, it lies about doing so. Has the Republican Party seized control of Wikipedia? Sure seems like it. Pwok 19:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

New source for free images

I just spotted some sets from the AEE and AVN Awards 2004 and 2006 on Flickr that are licensed as CC-BY-SA-2.0, to be found here (last four sets, 500+ pictures altogether). The problem is that almost all of them don't identify who these people are, so you have to verify the identities before uploading. Although the technical quality varies, some images might be useful nonetheless. I have already uploaded a new picture of Jenna Jameson (to Commons) and saw several of Ron Jeremy, Buck Adams, Amber Lynn, Nina Hartley and others. You may be able to identify more persons that I do. Regards --Rosenzweig 22:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if those images could be used. (A lot of them are basically "point and shoot" quality, but that's true of a lot of images on WP. Also, a lot of group shots, unfortunately.) However, only a couple months ago, I uploaded some Creative Commons 2.0 images to Wiki for use with an article, only to have them deleted a week later. It seems that may not be considered a valid Creative Commons license for Wikipedia. Then again, I uploded the images to Wikicommons, so maybe its only there that they have a rule against that particular CC license. I'm not familiar with the finer points of Wikipedia copyright paranoia to say what form of CC is ok and where. Anybody know? Iamcuriousblue 00:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As you guessed, the issue was probably with the specific Creative Commons license. The Creative Commons allows four sub-tags for a given license:

1. Attribution
2. Share Alike
3. Non-commercial
4. No Derivative Works

Material that have the first two sub-tags are usable on Wikipedia. Material that have the last two tag are not usable on Wikipedia. So I'm guessing the CC license on the material (either what you uploaded or what the source had it as) either had the Non-commercial or No derivative works tags on them. Let's use Flickr as an example... there are a lot of images up there with the Creative Commons license, but they'll have subtags that prevent reuse here. What I do in those instances is send them a very quick email (actual example follows):

Hi... I was looking through Flickr and I spotted this lovely picture of Robbie Williams which you took:

flickr.com/photos/catzi/219569003/in/set-72157594243585332/

And I was wondering if I could persuade you into making a small change in the license on the photograph so I could use it on Robbie's Wikipedia entry. You see, Wikipedia does not allow images with the "Noncommercial" or "No Derivative Works" tags to be used on it.

About 50% of the time (and this was one of them) the person at the other end will cheerfully make the needed changes. Tabercil 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• 121 suitably licensed pictures from this and last year's AEE can be found here. --Rosenzweig 20:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please

Please, lend a hand in creating or expanding articles for the following Indian pornstars.
Aditya Kabir 16:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Hardcore (mostly Non-Resident Indians):

1. Ariana Mistry
2. Gaya Patal
3. Sahara Knite
4. Priya Rai
5. Destiny Deville
6. Rashneen
7. Malvina
8. Balgit
9. Jayde
10. Jade Newman
11. Cassie Conway
12. Jahan
13. Rakhee
14. Zeinab
15. Jaya Kalpana
16. Vyomini Yuvati
17. Kavita

Unknown (are they real?) - contributed by others

1. Asha Kumara
2. Vikram Sohan
3. Ritu Sen

Softcore (mostly South Indians):

1. Sushmita Roy
2. Abhilasha
3. Suganthi
4. Rati Devi
5. Shakeela
6. Kumtaz
7. Babylona
8. Sindhu
9. Silk Smitha
10. Prema
11. Sneha
12. Disco Shanti
13. Alphonsa
14. Devisri
15. Devika
16. Jasmine
17. Sadhika
18. Shruti Sharma
19. Pratibha
20. Jaya
21. Punam Dasgupta

Fair use for retired erotic performers

I'm engaged in a discussion on the fair-use of images for retired Japanese erotic actresses here which may be of interest to members of this project. Dekkappai 18:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fusker - page may be deleted

Just noticed that Fusker page is at risk of deletion. Anyone here know why it would be considered not 'Notable' ? Any experts care to attempt a re-write ? 195.137.93.171 04:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it doesn't have other people writing about it. The tool has lots of users, but hasn't gotten much press. Unfortunately, we are only supposed to write about things that others have already written about. If you can point us to two unrelated articles about the tool, we'll fix the article and keep it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Japanese porn director at DYK

Just thought I'd let the project know I just got an article on Japanese pink film director, Giichi Nishihara at the DYK page-- Wikipedia:Recent additions. Dekkappai 01:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Real names

Does anyone have any objections if I were to add a section commenting about the need for reliable sources for the real names of porn stars, and that IMDB does not count as one? I'd also be adding some text by Jimbo to back up the IMDB part of the text (which can be seen on Talk:Mason Marconi). Tabercil 00:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've up and added a section on this topic. Feel free to comment and criticize. Tabercil 22:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding Project Assessment

I'm being very bold, and modifying our {{Pornproject}} template to include article assessment information.

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Assessment, and expand it, comment on its talk page, whatever; right now it contains information specific to our project, but just refers to other project pages for the basics of article assessment. If you want to change something, change it there, or comment on the talk page there. If you just think this whole idea of adding assessment is absolutely horrible (or absolutely great), comment here. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 04:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Great idea, I think. I've been keeping track of the rankings of the Japanese subjects myself so that the stubs don't lie around in a stubbish state forever. Having a quality ranking makes it easier to see where work is needed most. Dekkappai 22:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Portal

I noticed that the Pornography Portal was badly in need of updating and repair, so i did my best to get it up to speed. Any feedback or additional editing welcome. Arundhati lejeune 12:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Feedback. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Directing attention to penis size category/article

I was working on the Jeff Stryker and John Holmes articles when I began investigating if there was a significant number of these unusually large size penis owners among Wikipedia's articles. The first thing I did was to revert an edit to Template:Male adult bio which hid the displaying of penis measurement. Having then this tool I checked all articles which applied the template to see if there were in fact many more such persons. I was amazed to find more than 50 individuals with penises 8.5" or more, according to information given in their biographies. This has led me to create two items:

• The section Men famous for their large penis of the article Human penis size
• The category Category:Men with unusually large penis

Both of these were targeted almost immediately for either being trivial or the problems of unreliable information or arbitrary criteria. I think perhaps some editors associated with this project might want to check out the discussion at Talk:Human penis size and the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. __meco 12:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Big bust category also in jeopardy

Category:Big-bust models and performers has now also been nominated for deletion. __meco 08:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding article

I feel that Human penis size could benefit from the attention of this project. Is there disagreement on adding the project banner to that article? __meco 23:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I object because the article is not directly related to this project. 72.76.103.97 00:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I just figured it fitted the project's scope which includes "The larger topic of pornography itself, and social and cultural issues surrounding it." __meco 06:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. You may want it to, but it doesn't. 72.76.15.109 10:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with 72(etc.). It's primarily an anatomy and sexuality article, not pornography. It's also a popular Sexual fetish with a fair bit of pornography devoted to it, but so are nurses, high heels, lingerie, and Japanese schoolgirls, surely we're not going to add articles on all of them to our project. Sex is fundamental to all human existence, pornography is somewhat more narrowly defined. However, if you want to write a separate but related article, "Penis size in pornography", that seems like it would be fine, and it seems like there would be plenty of material for it, not just modern films starting with John Holmes, but all the way back to medieval woodcuts and maybe even cave paintings. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I would further suggest that if you do write an article entitled "Penis size in pornography", you put one or two short paragraphs on the topic of "Penis in porn" into the "Human penis size" article, and precede those stub paragraphs with a link to the "Penis in porn" article. See articles like Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal segment to get an idea of what I'm referring to. Tabercil 23:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that that's good approach. I have now examined the documentation for penis size claims in all articles that have been involved and tagged with {{cn}} those which present claims that aren't properly attributed or that don't originate from a reliable source. __meco 15:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it be a viable route to move/copy the contended section with the list of big penis owners here (perhaps a temp sub-page) which could be developed until deemed acceptable to all? __meco 16:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Your user space is a good scratch space. User:Meco/Penis size in pornography or something. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

His list has no place on this project page. His list and the article where he wants to insert it are not directly related to this project. 72.68.123.113 17:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

New pics

I just received a big donation of high-quality adult film star pics from a Flickr user - they can be seen at User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images#Requests to Flickr users. (It should be pretty obvious which ones are porn stars.) Some are for actresses for whom we apparently do not have articles. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

pornstar or porn star

I noticed some articles are titled with "<name> (porn star)" and others like "<name> (pornstar)". It'd be nice if there were some recommended usage (for article names) for consistency sake. Mahanga^Talk 02:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The term "porn star" should be two words. Any use of "pornstar" should be changed. Alternately, should "adult film actor" or "adult film actress" be used instead of the more colloquial "porn star"? Thoughts? Iamcuriousblue 12:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We want to be short in the article title, and can use longer forms in the article text. (porn star) is earthy, but unambiguous, (adult actor) or (adult actress) could also work. Just (actor) or (actress) also usually work when there aren't mainstream actors or actresses with that name. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject award!

		The Pornography Barnstar
		User:Videmus Omnia was kind enough to make us a WikiProject award template!

What do people think? I think we clearly need one. I like the XXX, it's much better than any of the ... ummm ... more graphic ... imagery that could be used. :-) I'm slightly worried by the rust on the star - rust and pornography aren't necessary the most pleasant association -- but not worried enough to actually take the effort to change it myself. :-) Any other comments? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

A discussion about deletion sorting of PORNBIO's has been started at WT:DS#Pornography_list. John Vandenberg 00:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Need help with linkspammers

Any of you who watchlist articles for porn stars or models have probably seen the linkspam that turns up labelled as "Photo gallery" or "Official site" (when it's not) - following the link leads you to a bunch of copyvio photos and some Google ads. The link is normally the model's name followed by .net, .org, or .biz. This is a huge campaign being carried out by a handful of spammers - for example, one of them is up to well over 200 domains (see User:A. B./Sandbox16). WP:WPSPAM is currently working on this, and we could use some help in identifying domains for blacklisting. If you see a link like this, could you please drop a note on my page, or at WT:WPSPAM? This is the current thread on this issue - that page normally gets archived pretty quickly, but the volunteers there will know what you are talking about if you mention "porn linkspammer" or "fake official site". Appreciate any help anyone can give in shutting down the spammer's access to Wikipedia. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Tabercil has been a consistent fighter against these cookie-cutter sites, and has additional documentation on this issue going back quite a long ways in User:Tabercil\Porn Linkspam (yes, the backslash is correct). Let's drop a note on his page. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed... these idiots are a long thorn in my side. They used to use a given set of IPs for their spamming and I was able to find and follow their work by checking for additions from those site, then backchecking to the blocked site to see what new URLs they have. Then they changed tactics and seem to favor proxies for their access. So in terms of blocking them from being able to add the links to Wikipedia, good luck on that score. In fact I would suggest automatically dumping any IP used to add this spam to WP:WPOP. There is one more thing I can suggest, and I'm going to put that suggestion on the WT:WPSPAM talk page. Tabercil 00:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This crap does annoy. I tend to be pretty diligent about checking links on the pages I do watch and taking them down if they turn out to be pure linkspam. (But I can't keep an eye on everything, obviously.) Obviously, having porn as an article subject involves having links to actors' official sites and interviews on what might also be adult sites. Unfortunately, this seems to embolden spammers who think, well, if that link is OK, why not mine? (I've actually had one or two obvious spammers actually challenge my deletes on this basis.) Iamcuriousblue 00:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if they don't see the light, let me know and I'll make sure they see it... via lots of little stars circling their head after judicious application of my block-hammer. <G> Tabercil 00:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Help from Adminstrators Needed

Hello, I have recently been reviewing and editing the Male Porn Stars articles. I am very concerned because most of the articles I am running across seems in my opinion to be written by the subject of the article. That is not the main concern I have though. What concerns me is the level of notability or lack of level that these individuals need to display in order to achieve a Wikipedia article! That in itself is not what bothers me the most though. I think the whole thing that gets me is that these individuals are allowed to place links to their web pages that take people to sites that are of adult content and are clear advertisements for hard core pornography. How do we safeguard children from accessing these links? In most cases these links will take you straight to pornographic photos of the subjects themselves engaging in sexual acts. Merely putting the words "Contains Adult Materials" does not stop a child from clicking onto these links or webpages. If anything that would act s a magnet to them. How does one go about putting this up for some form of review and consideration for rules to be implimented and changes to be made to the notability guidelines for these things? Please advise Junebug52 19:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy in question is called Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. The relevant sentence for most pornography articles are "While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, or content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy can be removed, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography)". We remove image galleries with no encyclopedic content all the time (see the talk page section just above this one, for example, about a whole franchise of such stuff), because they are a dime a dozen on the internet, and we can't either make our articles into link farms, or give preference to some over others for arbitrary reasons. However, the official sites of porn stars are often going to display their subjects going about their craft, and similarly will many of the most comprehensive magazine articles about them. We can't both write a comprehensive article about a pornographic performer, and not link to their site. Even if we didn't link, nothing would stop a reader from typing the performer's name into Google and be taken, not only to their site, but to all those image galleries without any text to speak of.

How does one go about changing a policy like that? By going to the policy talk page, and discussing there. However, I warn you, WP:NOT is likely to be rather hard to persuade people to change. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, I appreciate your time and energy to all of this. I have really gone on a quest here. Especially since a lone editor asked me to just review and article for him. I have been knocking some of these things out pretty fast. I hope you have been reviewing and making sure things are going in the right direction. I really think there needs to be better safeguards in place for Wikipedia. I alos think this may be a liability on someway for Wikipedia should a parent find that a child has accessed pornography from an article found on wikipedia. There has been other instances where that has been the case. Junebug52 20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To answer your first question, Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) should cover what makes a pornographic actor notable or not for Wikipedia. It should generally be followed. Please don't edit pornography articles with 'safeguards' for children in mind because it will lead you into conflict since Wikipedia is not censored and their liability is covered. We do not encourage kids to look at pornography related articles but we cannot help if they do and we will not impede the access of adults to pertinent and encyclopedic material about pornography to protect children. But, feel free to edit within our guidelines to promote an encyclopedic tone in pornography articles. If articles are advertisements for porn stars then they are not encyclopedic. A few things from your edits:

diff You cannot cite Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia:Reliable sources should show you what are reliable sources.

diff It's a good idea to remove websites linked willy-nilly in the article. External links belong in the external link sections and in citations. When linked in body it is usually trying to get more people to click through to their site.

diff "measurement", however crude that may seem is part of template:Male adult bio. Please don't remove it on article pages; instead, you can fight for its removal on the template talk page. However, as long as it is part of an accepted template it belongs in the articles. I also don't understand why you remove verifiability/unreferenced and add the vague tags of cleanup and expand. More specific tags are important. I have no readded the links to photo galleries but that has long been accepted in porn articles... so, I would at least try to discuss with regular editors of these articles before trying to change everything.

Some of the work you're doing is really good since pornography articles are horribly messy and advertisements. I am just a little worried that some of it is overzealous and about protecting children rather than writing an encyclopedia. gren グレン 23:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Gren, I really appreciate your input. I got involved in this strictly by accident. I got an e mail from another editor saying they were having a problem and would I look at the article. When I started going through them, I noticed these articles were riddled with sapm and advertisements. I have taken it upon myself to go through these articles and rid them of these aspects. I am not on a mission to rid wikipedia of pornography articles. But you must admit that this is quiet a problem here. It is not an issue of us worrying about children going to these articles for pornography. It is the sites that are offering services and asking people to download porn. That really bothers me and I feel there should be some rules put in place to safeguard against this stuff. Junebug52 03:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cream of the Crop

Could someone take a look at Image:Cream_of_the_crop.jpg as I'm not sure about notability in this area. Cream of the Crop is about an unrelated album, so I suspect some disambiguation is required. See also The_French_Connection_(videos)#Cream_of_the_Crop. John Vandenberg 00:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps rationale for these articles should be added

I've rarely seen a genre of articles so often nominated for AFD as porn-related articles. From various subject matter to individual performer articles (regardless of whether they meet notability requirements), I'm willing to bet that articles under this WikiProject have the hardest time being kept on Wikipedia without running into difficulty. In that regard, I wonder if this page shouldn't include some sort of rationale for why such articles are important and why at least some porn performers are just as notable as mainstream actors and worthy of articles. Such a statement could then be referred to by those attempting to defend articles from AFD or PROD nomination (at least those that otherwise do satisfy notability, but that are being nominated either due to WP:OSTRICH or straight-out anti-porn bias. The essay at Wikipedia:Pornography is also a good source as it sums up where Wiki draws the line as a whole. 68.146.41.232 13:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

On an optimistic level, I might fully agree with you. However, it's not that people don't think that pornographic articles are "just as notable as mainstream actors and worthy of articles", it's that personal biases against pornography come into play 9 times out of 10. Given that every contributor has some kind of opinion on pornography, people are really polarized in their opinion of it already. So you could write a detailed, persuasive rationale for inclusion of pornography articles in Wikipedia, but I doubt that it would be effective given the polarizing effect pornography has on people. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 15:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think we already have such an argument present: WP:PORNBIO. <G> Tabercil 16:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In part, but I believe the editor was referring to an essay on the merits of having pornography articles in Wikipedia. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 16:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

More featured articles

In seeing that Jenna Jameson has achieved FA status, I was not able to find any additional pornography articles on pornography actors that have made it to FA status. So I propose that we see which articles are GA/FA worthy, and then work on polishing them up. Among a few of my picks, they include:

• John Holmes
• Ron Jeremy
• Linda Lovelace

Personally, I believe we should start working on Ron Jeremy, since that seems to be the better article of the three, and can be quickly brought to FA status. Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Assessment, that lists and rates our articles. "We" actually have another FA (since the project's scope expanding to cover all Pornography, from just Porn stars), History of erotic depictions. Not that it was an FA by project participants as such, it was mostly the work of User:Pschemp; but that's a mere technicality. :-). Similarly, we have a Wikipedia:Good article; on a pornography US Supreme Court case. Anyway, WP:P*/A#Statistics lists our articles in categories by quality and importance; you can, at a few clicks, see that we have 58 Category:B-Class Pornography articles, that would presumably have more material already in them, and 16 Category:Top-importance Pornography articles articles, that presumably have more material in the outside world to add. You will notice a number come from the list on the user page of User:Dekkappai - Dek has done wonders while you were inactive, making quite a few good articles on Japanese porn stars. I've been prompting him to nominate a few for GA, as I think they qualify, but he says he's on Wikibreak for a while, and I can't do it myself without him, as I just don't have access to the resources if anyone asks questions. Specifically for Ron Jeremy, I recall User:Tabercil wanted to make that the next FA target, and even asked me to help, but I have been woefully remiss in helping out. :-( --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Very cool. :-) In any event, we need to get some actor biographies some love as well. Ron Jeremy would be a good place to start as any, since it's the most developed. I guess I'll go about reading it over then posting my suggestions on it, a la Jenna Jameson, sometime later. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 20:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help out if work is started on the hedgehog's article. Trevor GH5 23:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it right now, it's a little over-sectionalized, especially in the "Non-pornographic appearances" section. Contact me if you still want to make an FA push. Trevor GH5 23:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments on minor change regarding "natural bust" field in infobox

A user brought up a proposal to change the "natural bust" field into something more neutrally worded. See this. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 20:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Micah Moore AfD

Would anyone object if I nominated Micah Moore for deletion? Epbr123 11:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• She likely meets Wikipedia: Notability with a fair bit of press in the short time she's been working. Besides the links listed on the page, she has
  • http://ainews.com/Archives/Story12184.phtml (press release)
  • http://www.rogreviews.com/interviews/micah_moore_07.asp
  • http://www.thefameawards.com/nominees.aspx (F.A.M.E. nominee)
  • http://www.smh.com.au/news/home-theatre/highdef-porn-has-stars-spooked/2007/01/15/1168709667041.html (trivial mention, but mainstream source)
  • http://www.pornvalleynews.com/home/archives/2007/07/micah_moore_say_1.html

Even discounting the press release and trivial mention, that's a fair bit of unrelated non-trivial coverage. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Allow me to plug User:AnonEMouse/MouSearch - search engine for more articles, less pictorial sites and movie sales. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the research. I won't make the AfD due to the number of sources found. Although, technically she still doesn't pass Wikipedia: Notability as those sources are all either non-independent, trivial or primary sources, and she wasn't a finalist for the Fame Award, so she wasn't a "serious nominee". Epbr123 15:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Jack Baker (actor)

I'd like to ask for other editors' opinions. An anon editor (a family member, I suspect) added a great deal of information to Jack Baker (actor) yesterday. Unfortunately none of it was sourced. I edited it and cut quite a bit, because I didn't think it was particularly important (the names of his friends, an unpublished screenplay), and in some cases I couldn't find the "important" people named in the article using Google. (I also added an infobox.)

Today another anon editor restored all the deleted material with an edit summary "Returned information gemane to a fuller understanding and appreciation of Mr. Bailey's life and contributions." (Baker's name was John Bailey.)

I don't want to get into an edit war, but I continue to believe that most of the material I deleted doesn't belong in the article. Could somebody else take a look at the article and its edit history and see if I was too aggressive in cutting material? Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The article needs to have reliable and verifiable sources. It presently has none of those, other than two links to IAFD and IMDb. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

boob911.sensualwriter.com link

Just a FYI... User:Acido rockstar continues to add links to boob911.sensualwriter.com. Myself and others have removed them from the pages he(?) continues to add them to, namely Ines Cudna, Ewa Sonnet and Fuko. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 23:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Question on article sources

I was wondering about what references would be considered proper sources for porn-related articles as per WP:Verify. Specifically, I want to substantially rewrite the Abbywinters.com article to be based more on published, verifiable sources. There's a blog that was started by an ex-AW member and staffer called Liandra Lets Loose. In it, she claims that "Abby Winters" is a man named Garion Hall, which is in contradiction to the official story on AbbyWinters.com that Abby Winters is a real person. Ideally, I think the article should state both versions of the story, however, I'm unsure as to whether Liandra's blog passes muster under WP:VERIFY. Then again, information about porn-related subjects often is hard to find from sources more "reliable" than websites. Anyway, I'd appreciate the thoughts and guidance of other members of this project. Iamcuriousblue 04:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... at best, I believe it'd probably be disputed if you included it. On the other hand do we have any reliable evidence that Liandra worked for AW? If so, we may yet have a case for inclusion then. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

She's pictured as one of the models on that site [1], as well as I FeelMyself. [2] I don't think there's been any dispute that the Liandra who runs the blog is the same person. Iamcuriousblue 06:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I suppose it can be added, although it's technically an allegation. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 07:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll be sure to include language making it clear that it is an allegation. Iamcuriousblue 07:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protecting articles

A recurring problem that we're all stuck cleaning up is that of mindless, minor vandalism. Since the early days of this project, I remember spending a bulk of my time cleaning up the mess; I don't know about you guys, but I see a lot of members of this project doing the same thing, particularly when I review my watchlist every so often.

Frankly, there really wasn't much to do about it back then... However, we now have a (much needed) feature of semi-protecting articles.

The maddening thing to me about this tool is that while we have it, we don't use it. It's mainly used for larger articles on Wikipedia, such as George W. Bush, Fidel Castro and even Ron Jeremy.

However, I'm seeing that much of the time of people who contribute to this wikiproject is wasted on investigating, reverting, and warning morons who are vandalising pages -- warnings that don't get heeded most of the time anyway.

With that in mind, what I propose we do is go through and identify which articles are being often targeted by vandals, list them here, and then decide whether or not they should be semi-protected.

Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 22:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable for some; but I would try to avoid applying it too much. Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection gives two points for indefinite semi-protection that seem to apply here:

1. Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism, such as George W. Bush.[1]
2. Biographies subject to vandalism and/or POV-pushing that are not widely watchlisted.

[1] is a link to Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection which also seems like a useful essay. It says that we can expect 5% of an article's edits to be vandalism, while 50% seems like it would be the maximum, assuming each incident would be reverted individually. It also says that the more complete or better quality articles tend to suffer more from any incident of vandalism, and are less likely to be improved by anonymous edits. Before Jenna Jameson (a Featured Article) was indefinitely semi-protected, it was vandalized an average of about once per day, always or almost always by IPs or new accounts, and improved (even a good faith attempt at improving) maybe once per month, always or almost always by established accounts. That's not always the case, by the way, that IP edits are all or even mostly harmful; another article on my watchlist, Louise Wightman (edit history) has been improved a great deal by IP edits. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why I'm looking for high profile instances of articles that are vandalized by anons or new users. We can't semi-protect every article and there are articles that, while few in number, are helped out by honest anon users. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Specific candidates

the {{la}} template is useful here

• Here is a reasonable candidate for discussion: Jenna Haze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I think it meets several criteria:

• it's edited reasonably often by IPs: 19 IP edits in the last month, which is about 40%
• those IP edits tend to be reverted as vandalism
• it's in debatable shape - not even B-class, but not a stub, has 15 references
• and it has an interesting special case: an alternative newspaper printed personal information based on a prior version of our article, which was then for a while used to source that same information in our article

on the other hand

• it's a reasonably high profile article, there are a number of editors watching it
• the subject is quite notable as a porn star - look at the length of that awards list - and presumably could be improved

Good example for indefinite semi-protection? How about maybe a month or two months? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say a two month trial run would be a good idea for an article, unless circumstances warrant a longer (or infinite) extension. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

2 months. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Here is a better one: Pornographic actor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This one gets regular IP edits, 31 in the last month, almost all harmful, usually by people who think it is fun to add their friends or enemies as "the most famous male performers". Permanent? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Definitely. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 16:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Done. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• I find myself reverting vandalism on Shyla Stylez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a lot; it seems to be that over 50% of the edits there are vandalism or spam related. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe 1 month? That article has had some slightly useful IP edits before. [3][4][5] but is being targeted recently. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Same goes for:
  • Krystal Steal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I find myself reverting this sometimes; seems to be a borderline case, though. What does everyone else think?

    I think 1 month. Some useful IP edits [6], but the birth name thing is repetitive.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

    • After yet-another-edit where an anon posted her alleged birth name... Done. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 06:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Jennifer Ellison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I think not. Only 3 IP or new editor edits in the last month (4 but one reverted themselves), and all minor (stating she is a supporter of Everton Football Club is hardly the worst we've ever had in an article). --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

    Actually, I was looking at the past 3 or so months. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 17:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Playboy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Oh yes. I'd say indefinite. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

    I agree. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 17:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Penthouse (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I think not. Only 2 IP edits in the last month (3, but one reverted themselves), and it has had a number of good useful IP edits in the last several months: [7] [8] [9] --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Jesse Jane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Nearly 100% of the vandalism edits occurring since the beginning of October have been done by IP addresses or new users. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Tera Patrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Could stand to be semi-protected for a month or so. Not much in the way of recent activity though. But something to keep an eye on none the less, since about 75% of the edits made by anon or new users have been vandalism of one kind or another, some of which is fixated over her Jewish heritage. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I imagine that anything relating to the magazines tends to be targeted a lot. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • One could think so, but looking at histories, it looks like Playboy is targeted an order of magnitude more than Penthouse. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • In looking into it, that sounds about right. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 17:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Sakura Sena has had some sort of odd, low-level, slo-mo edit-war going on over a sourced couple of sentences about the actress having a boyfriend and living in Canada when interviewed. One user (User:Sakurasena has been continuously removing this information, and the edit summary of the most recent removal here seems to imply a declaration of total edit-war. I've dropped a note at the editor's talk page, so hopefully it can be worked out... Dekkappai 16:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Student erotica

Could I get some support over at the erotica article to keep the section on student erotica? Thanks! Student erotica 04:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: The user "Student erotica" is alleged to be a sockpuppet of South Philly and has instigated an edit war over the content. Further replies will be left at Talk:Erotica in the appropriate section. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

IAFD & AFDB

Are IAFD and AFDB reliable sources per WP:BLP for personal info such as dates of birth? Epbr123 00:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, see WP:RSEX#Use of electronic or online sources. IMDb biography/trivia sections are user supplied, sometimes anonymously with limited editorial oversight. IAFD (RAME.net) information comes in part from rec.arts.movies.erotica. The databases are reliable for the movies themselves, cast, and crew. • Gene93k 02:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would put more stock in IAFD and even AFDB over IMDb any day of the week, seeing that the people responsible for RAME are also responsible for IAFD. (As for AFDB, they get their stuff from the manufacturers directly.) However, regardless of that, technically neither AFDB nor IMDB are "reliable sources" in Wikipedia's eyes. So, the short answer is "no". -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 05:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Lucy Pinder

I would like to request that the page "Lucy Pinder" be taken out of wikiproject pornography, she is not a porn star, she has posed topless but thats it, the WWE diva Mickie James has posed nude once, yet she isnt a part of this project.--[[Metal to the Max! 11:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)]]

I think it's appropriate. As you've noticed, we're not WikiProject Porn Stars any more, we do cover all pornography. Our article on pornography defines it as "the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal and/or sexual relief". It's pretty clear that Lucy Pinder's main reason for notability is the representation of her body with the goal of sexual arousal; the only question is what "explicit" means. I know that in Europe toplessness is not seen as big a deal as in the US; however, in her own article, Lucy Pinder, it says that she made a big deal out of not posing topless for a while, but eventually went to a completely nude photo set. Fully nude is about as "explicit representation of the human body" as you can get. I don't know much about Mickie James, but her article gives only one line to her posing, she seems to be a wrestler. If someone were to add her to this project based on one pictorial, I wouldn't object, but I'm not going to press for it. As a counterexample, though, Chyna (Joanie Laurer), however, had several Playboy shoots and videos, so should probably be added to our project. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

But posing in playboy or nude anywhere for that matter is not classed as porn, toppless is nothing, porn is seriouise. think of it like this, a girls parents wouldnt care asmuch about their child posing toppless compared to being in a porn video. by having people who have posed toppless or nude in this project would be giving them a reputation they do not deserve. waether that be classed as good or bad. --Metal to the Max! 11:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Playboy is softcore pornography and nude glamour models clearly fall under the scope of this project. And frankly, this is a nonsensical and rather incoherent argument you're making. Wikipedia is not about regard for people's "reputations" one way or the other. Iamcuriousblue 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OK i agree with the whole playboy thing, but i dont have a problem with that, Lucy pinder has only posed toppless, that is not porn, type porn in google and see what pops up, it wont be Lucy Pinder pics, it will be Jenna Jameson and so on, thats my point. My augument has nothing to do with playboy, if you didnt notice i did make the subject title Lucy Pinder. --Metal to the Max! 10:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone gonna answer me? i asked a question then everyone has a sook about it, i give a good reason for my opinion and then no one has anything to say at all. I could just do it myself but then i get a message saying im a vandal and a sockpuppet. this wikiproject really needs to get into shape!! --Metal to the Max! 11:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... looks like two people already did. Perhaps it is just no the answer your looking for? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, they gave me an answer i had a rebutle to, therefor i still havnt gotton a valid reason why lucy pinder cant be released from the project. --Metal to the Max! 10:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

She has posed fully nude, the same as models in Playboy. If Playboy models come under the project, so does Lucy. Epbr123 11:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Really mate, are you really really sure about that, because from what iv heard she has only posed topless. and when she has posed nude she has been covering up in some way, therefor she could be wearing something under that cover up now couldnt she. and if you are certain that she has posed fully nude then give me a link to prove it. --Metal to the Max! 10:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[10] and [11]. She's not showing her genitalia, but that's the difference between hardcore and softcore pornography. Epbr123 11:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No the difference is that theres no 1 else plowing the dick into the chciks arse, thats the difference between soft core and hardcore. I dont care any more! No 1 here listens to reason, and once you have the right opinion and no1 else has anything to say about it they just ignore my whole point, so hey, i can keep on fighting about this, but once i get my point across Lucy Pinder will still be a part of the project and people will just ignore my efforts. --Metal to the Max! 11:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Roughies"

In describing the "Violent pink" genre of Japanese films at the article on Yasuharu Hasebe, I came across a source that made a comparison to the American "roughies". I was surprised to find that there is no article on this genre. Or is there one, but I'm looking in the wrong place? Or would this be a good subject for an article for someone who knows something about the genre? (I do not, but I'd be interested in reading one.) Dekkappai 17:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Camella Bing

now i know Carmella is a proper porn star, she has been in many pornos, yet she has no page? could someone who knows abit about her pls make a page on her. --Metal to the Max! 09:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

She has to meet one of the criteria pertaining to people and pornography performers on WP:BIO. If she does, then she can have her own page. ;-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 15:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

OK i can respect that, but why cant she just have a page made? I mean if she is a porn star, (she has performed with Kelly Madison and for naughty america) and many more movies, what else do we need to make a page for her??--Metal to the Max! 09:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Carmella Bing had a page and it was deleted per this AfD as not notable. If it is created again it will probably be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4 unless it can cite objective notability. The best way to do that is find an award she won or was credibly nominated for. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well the one place i know would/should have that info would be wikipedia, but i cant do that in this option. What if i named some of her work?--Metal to the Max! 09:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Luke Ford

It's been rumoured that Luke Ford is no longer the person behind lukeisback.com. He had put his website for sale, rumoured to have then sold the site, and then a mysterious post (from the buyer?) denying that the site was for sale. As such, he may no longer own his images. I think we must seek clarification and assurances that the license is still valid. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The license is still valid. He owned the images at the time he licensed them. In fact, he has been back in touch with Tabercil just recently, saying that more images from his lukeford.net site (mostly minor mainstream celebrities) are also covered by the license, and are similarly free to use. As for lukeisback.com, the style does not seem to have changed. I suspect the sale did not go through. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

proposed amendment to WP:notability

I would like to discuss removing the use of nominations as a notability criteria for pornographic actors. My arguments are in the discussion page of WP:notability. I believe the amount of nominations given by AVN every year renders the "serious nominee" criteria to be a joke. I would like members of the project to participate in the discussion. I must disclose that I am a voting/nominating member of the XRCO Awards, but I also believe that only winners should be considered notable, not nominees. Vinh1313 (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that nominations shouldn't be solely used as a notability criteria, we've already discussed this previously on Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors) and consensus was clearly split on the subject. Unless I'm wrong, I doubt that much has changed since that discussion some months ago. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 07:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Other than AVN having just unleashed probably about a hundred more nominees to wade through. Vinh1313 (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that what the 2008 AVN nominations are a farce (up to 15 nominees per category), but I still believe nominations through 2007 remain credible enough. Credible recognition as one of the best should be good enough for notability. The options here all look messy. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

WPP GA Review

I put the Tetsuji Takechi article up for GA review here. Since he's known as the Father of Japanese Porn, maybe someone at this project would like to take a look at the article? Dekkappai (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

W:WPP discussion on adultdvdtalk

Both Eli Cross and Kylie Ireland have issues with some of the project's guidelines along with wikipedia in general. Specifically, they object to the use of Luke Ford as a reliable unbiased source for anything (including photos) to do with pornography. They also object to the inclusion of real names in articles for any reason whatsoever. Please see the thread for this discussion. I have participated under the discussion as username, morbidthoughts. Vinh1313 04:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Luke Ford is not a reliable source and generally isn't considered one (he falls under WP:SPS), but not all well-intentioned editors get it. Wikipedia biographies of living people guidelines are clear: do no harm (Presumption in favor of privacy, Privacy of birthdays, Privacy of names, and Specific examples of sources). As for real names, most of the regular editors will remove them. On birth dates, orientation, etc., some editors take a harder line than others on sources. As for the Teagan Presley article mentioned there, some of it is poorly sourced and needs a cleanup. • Gene93k 08:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Although I'm (on some level) responsible for Luke Ford having a "presence" in Wikipedia in terms of content very early on in this project's infancy, I find that most of his stuff is being -- or has been -- removed, particularly from the higher-end articles like Jenna Jameson, et al. Needless to say, I would be in total favor of eviscerating Luke Ford from every facet of Wikipedia's existence, since he's a glorified gossip columnist. As for the pictures... I don't care for them much either, but he did release them under Creative Commons, thus making them usable on WP.

Now, having read that thread, many of the problems Eli, Kylie, and others have posted on are problems with Wikipedia itself... not so much this minor wiki-project. It's also one of the reasons why I don't contribute here any more, because some so-called "well-intentioned" idiot *can* come along and f**k the pooch, since there really is nothing in the way of accountability on Wikipedia. Everyone hides behind a glorified screenname and can unleash as much damage as possible... If the controversies arisen from the uncouth John Siegenthaler edits, to the lying mouth of Essjay and others have proven anything, it's that Wikipedia needs to change its fundamentally flawed policies with stronger, realistic accountability methods. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 16:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I responded in ... just a bit more detail :-). User:AnonEMouse/AdultDVDTalk --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Eli & Kylie made some valid points re: use of real names. It's dangerous and irresponsible. Was that issue ever settled? I'm left with the impression that the majority of editors think real names should be included.Reelm (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Eli and Kylie. If it isn't provided with a valid source (like the NY Times or other source of high standing), then it shouldn't be provided. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with the presumption against giving real names, but I don't agree with the part about "for any reason whatsoever". The article on Traci Lords is a prime example – her real name "Nora Louise Kuzma" is given in her autobiography and multiple secondary sources – its very much part of the public record and life story of Traci Lords and needs to be included. Jenna Jameson's real name "Jenna Marie Massoli" was apparently reported, presumably with her consent, as part of an E! True Hollywood Story report and perhaps in other sources – it should also probably be included here if that's the case. We should include real names if reputable, verifiable sources are already reporting them. However, real names should not be given if the source is a discussion board or Luke Ford. In fact, Luke Ford shouldn't be considered a reliable source at all. Editors can make judicious use of Ford's primary sources, but if the only source is Ford himself, forget it. What's the consensus about whether or not to include Ford's porn star bios as an "External link"? I could go either way on that. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider Ford to be reliable. At. All. If a name is already a part of the public record, that's one thing, but when an unsourced name is added that's potentially dangerous. I've seen bios where the full legal name, place of birth, and high school are listed. This is like a trail of breadcrumbs for identity thieves. Porn stars are generally not notable for their private lives, so this sort of info seems irrelevant.Reelm (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A Question

Is the page Ero-guro part of this project?--A (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it might, but I think a big problem with the article is that its not well-written and it makes it bloody unclear as to what "ero-guro" even is. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the state of the Ero-guro article-- needs lots of work. As to whether it falls under this category... Yes and no. Sometimes Ero-guro goes into porn, and vice-versa... I wonder myself about very soft, erotic films, such as, in Korean cinema, Mulberry and Madame Aema. I know that the Koreans themselves, coming out of a decade of strict censorship, considered these films shocking and "pornographic" at the time. By U.S. standards, and by South Korean standards of today, they are pretty tame. So, should we put the "Porn project" tag on them? Any thoughts? Dekkappai (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Does "ero-guro" include extreme musicians like The Gerogergegee (sp?). That's not pornography per se (even if some of the members do stuff like jerk off on stage). Some of the manifestations of this movement in visual art might come under the heading of "pornography". Again, I'd need to know the specifics. But what it sounds like to me, more than anything, is a multi-medium artistic movement, probably falling under WikiProject Arts more than anything. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

Would you please give your opinion on the content discussion at Talk:Matt Sanchez regarding his adult film career? Your help would be appreciated. Aleta (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Coming out of lurkerdom because I know a little about this. About 10 years ago I was a reviewer at RAD Video, so I'm familiar with the Rod Majors/Matt Sanchez videography.

First off, Falcon, Catalina, Bijou - these are gay porn companies. There's no ambiguity about it. That's what they call themselves. And they do market their videos as gay. When he says these companies don't target the gay market and that they avoid the word gay, he's just plain wrong. The word gay appears six times in the title header alone on the Catalina Video web site (now owned by Chi Chi LaRue).

Just for clarification, the term "gay" refers to boy-boy sex. If we're talking about a same sex scene involving two (or more) women people generally use the term "girl-girl" or lesbian. Straight videos with girl-girl scenes aren't classified as gay or bi because - as far as marketing goes - gay = all male. Also, these scenes are designed to appeal to a straight male sensibility. They're generally not presented from a genuinely lesbian point of view, which is why straight porn with girl-girl scenes don't fall under the LGBT banner.

As far as his career goes... In every video that I know of Rod Majors was always paired with another man. He acted as a top and always performed oral sex on other men. As far as I know he never made a solo video, and he never appeared in a sex scene with another woman. There's only one bisexual video on his filmography - a movie called "Bi Conflict." The protagonist is a married man who's conflicted about his sexuality. Rod Majors plays a gay man who has sex with the protagonist.

Finally, in the early 90s there was a very clear distinction between gay and straight porn. While gay solo videos are sometimes designed to have cross over appeal for straight women, gay porn is never marketed to straight men. Matt Sanchez seems to be implying that straight men make up a significant portion of the gay porn audience. This is another laughable claim. I'm sure some gay porn fans identify as bisexual and some straight women might be titillated by it too (see the Brokeback Mountain phenomenon), hardcore gay sex is usually the last thing a straight man wants to see. But you don't have to be an expert to know that. Reelm (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this "expert" a homosexual male? Doesn't that discount him from knowing what "a straight man wants to see"? I don't think anyone would call these videos, "hardcore". Has this person performed in videos himself or produced them? Matt Sanchez (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Of course your videos are hardcore! They all feature graphic sex with penetration shots. (see Hardcore Pornography). And like I said before, you don't have to be an expert to know that straight guys aren't interested in gay porn. Heterosexuals by definition are not turned on by homosexual sex. It's common knowledge.

I've worked for companies that sell adult content, so I know how pornography is marketed.Reelm (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Reelm. I've reviewed gay, straight and bisexual adult films, and worked for two adult film magazines as a freelancer and reviewer. I've judged two gay adult film awards shows. Sanchez's claims utterly lack verifiability under Wikipedia's guidelines. I understand his desire to retcon his adult film career given his present circumstances, but any claims made need to be verifiable and not be given undue weight. His current claims about what constitutes hard-core adult film or who watches hard-core gay adult films are unverifiable, and so extreme as to run afoul of the "undue weight" guidelines. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Dana DeArmond article semi-protect request

There is currently an edit war going in the article. An IP who identifies himself as the webmaster or owner of DanaDearmond.com keeps reinserting his link as her official website when she is no longer affiliated with it. Vinh1313 (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 16:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Two templates

I've created a template for members of WikiProject Pornography to use, and another for anyone interested in pornography to use.

The first is a user box for individuals interested in pornography. It can be found at Template:User Pornography. The code for putting this template on your User page is {{User Pornography}}. The template puts a user box on the page, and points to WikiProject Pornography.

The second is a user box for individuals who are members of WikiProject Pornography. It can be found at Template:User WikiProject Pornography. The code for putting this template on your User page is {{User WikiProject Pornography}}. The template puts a user box on the page, announces your membership in WikiProject Pornography, and points to WikiProject Pornography.

I relied on the pornography barnstar for an image. If anyone has a better suggestion, I'm very open to that. (I don't "own" these templates; templates should be a collaborative project.) The user box template is blue because pornography is "blue" (get it?). The WikiProject member user box is all red text, because pornography used to be relegated only to "red light district" (get it?). (I hear that groaning at my awful humor!)

Please leave comments here and on the respective template talk page, if you feel there should be changes or see errors or whatnot. Thank you. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice templates. I really like the "hard-core member". There's another porn template at User:UBX/porn. I also made a WikiProject Pornography member template at User:Malik Shabazz/Userboxes/WikiProject Pornography, but I never got around to publicizing it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

AVN Magazine

Just wanted to let you guys know that I completely rewrote the AVN (magazine) article. Despite its importance, it was a complete puff piece before. However, I stopped looking up references after 2004 because I got tired of reading the same crap over and over. Heh. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Offhand? Looks nice. Good job! Tabercil (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BIO rules apparently have changed again

I'm not a member of this project, but I thought I would bring to the group's attention the fact that deletionists now have another bit of ammunition in their ongoing quest to rid WP of articles on adult film performers and models. Once again Wikipedia's rules appear to have changed without wide consultation so a new AFD for Carmen Hayes is citing new criteria under WP:BIO (which I'll have to investigate as it's new to me) as grounds for deleting that particular article. I'm not stating an opinion as to whether the particular article on Hayes is worthy of inclusion even under previous rules, but this should probably serve as a heads up that more porn star articles are likely to be targeted similarly, even if they've survived AFD challenges in the past (as is the case with Hayes). Or, it could be a case of an overzealous editor confusing guidelines with policy or proposed changes with policy (which happens reguarly in AFD nominations) in which case the project may want to set the record straight before an AFD flood occurs. 23skidoo (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was a discussion to merge the separate pornography bio guidelines into the regular, all encompassing ones in which certain things were discussed. The number of films was always a contentious point anyway, so that was thrown out a while ago, IIRC. Which I agree with, since consensus was split on that point. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Gkleinman‎

User:Gkleinman‎ and User:24.21.183.177 has been adding references and external links to his website XCritic in many articles, which goes against wp:soap. He's been warned by several users not to do this. I've been trying to go through and remove them. Please keep an eye out for it.Vinh1313 (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The only links placed are ones which are legitimate citations. Your removal of them is a disservice to WP Gkleinman (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The links added to Digital Playground for example were marginally relevant and of little informational value per WP:EL. They are borderline WP:link spam and the blatant conflict of interest clinches it. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to suggest any external links or references (citations) to your websites, you should suggest them in the talk page as per WP:EL and WP:SOAP. Your conflict of interest and your failure to observe these guidelines and policies is the disservice to wikipedia. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK Further links will be proposed for inclusion on the discussion page vs placed in the article. Sorry.. Gkleinman (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Stoya

Digital Playground's newest contract star does not have a WP entry. She has been cited by AVN a few times. Here they are for reference: Digital Playground Signs Stoya to Exclusive Contract DP's Stoya Makes Her Boy/Girl Debut in Jack's POV 9

She's got a number of roles in big DP productions in the future. So she might be a good candidate for an entry Gkleinman (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Right now she's in Jack's POV 9, Sexual Freak 7 and it's been announced she'll be in Pirates II Pirates Press Release

Heather Hunter

An IP editor recently added information, allegedly cited to Hunter's recent book Insatiable, that includes her "real name". Her book isn't available for searching on Google Books or Amazon.com. Does anybody have a copy, or access to a copy? Can we accept the information, or should we delete the name pending verification? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but I found an excerpt - read it here

Insatiable is a work of fiction though. So it shouldn't be used as a source for Heather Hunter's bio.Reelm (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an interview of Heather talking about the book and she seems to refer to Simone as a fictional character although the interview describes the book as semi-autobiographical. It's not her real name and we should make it clear as such.

http://www.blackvoices.com/blogs/2007/07/25/heather-hunter-life-after-porn-stardom/ Vinh1313 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

New Wikipedia:Good Articles!

We have recently (within the last eight days), doubled the number of Wikipedia:Good articles in our project Category:GA-Class Pornography articles, to six!

• Tetsuji Takechi - first Japanese pink film director, mostly authored by User:Dekkappai. Possibly a Wikipedia:Featured article candidate? GA Jan 4.
• Louise Glover - British glamour model, article survived an AFD. GA Jan 4.
• Karen McDougal - Playboy Playmate of the Year, article mostly authored by an IP editor, GA Dec 1.

Just a bit earlier,

• Casey Donovan - early gay porn star, mostly by User:Otto4711, brought us to three on Dec 1. I notice Otto is not in our membership rosters - terrible oversight! Off to campaign... :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not The Brady's XXX

Someone might want to spruce up the page, it's pretty bare bones. It's gotten an 2008 AVN Nomination and XCritic Picks Not The Bradys XXX as Top Adult DVD For 2007Gkleinman (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Opening of Deletion Season

Well, Deletion Season seems to have officially opened. :(... A couple of questions come to mind:

1. Is a person allowed to nominate as many articles as s/he can for deletion at one time?
2. Is there no limit to how many times an article can be nominated for deletion?

Obviously, the answers appear to be 1) "Yes" and 2) "No." I wonder if this is how it should be, and if anything can be done about it? I mean, "Speedying" an article on an actress with an award listed at the time (even if not in the clearest of English), and articles (THIS, for one) which have previously survived AfD indicates reckless and indescriminate use of the deletion process. The nomination of multiple AfDs also prevents editors interested in the subjects from preparing full defense/research for each article, requiring them to concentrate on a smaller number in which they have more specific interest. Is the situation hopeless? Is the entire project at the mercy of Deletionists who can nominate at will, as often as they like, until they find subjects no one else cares or knows enough about to defend? Or until they just wear out the defenders? Dekkappai (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this might explain what happened with the Yuria Kato speedy delete attempt. I checked the first afd and it said the article was deleted which seemed to contradict the afd warning in the discussion. I checked with (2nd nomination) and found nothing and presumed there was no second nomination. Then the admin pointed me to the correct one after the fact.

The renominations I have placed have usually been in recognition of the changes from wp:pornbio to wp:bio. I simply just don't share your doomsday outlook on the deletion of articles. I believe the checks in the process are fair whether it be requiring a consensus in an AfD or having an admin check on a speedy delete. Vinh1313 (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it is reassuring to know that one of the mass-Speedy/AfD nominators doesn't agree with my Doomsday scenario of the situation... My point is that these mass-nominations and endless re-nominations result in editors who are opposed to the censorship of Wikipedia throwing up their hands, saying "Fuck it," and just guarding articles in which they have a specific interest. (Yes, removal of these articles is censorship, whether it originates from moral-extremism or extremist following of the letter of the guidelines, which themselves state that they are to be interpreted with common sense.) The inappropriate Speedies I mentioned above were only within my own small area of interest at this project. I briefly saw others, but, having been burned by wasting my time defending articles in which I had no interest during the last outbreak of deletion-madness-- which were saved then, but subsequently deleted because we'd all given up-- said, "Fuck it," and went on to the Japanese articles. Dekkappai (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"having been burned by wasting my time defending articles in which I had no interest during the last outbreak of deletion-madness" - this suggests that your aim isn't to counteract cultural bias, but in fact to prevent the deletion of any porn star articles. Epbr123 (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Amazing how far off-base literalistic interpretations can become... I was "burned by wasting my time defending articles in which I had no interest during the last outbreak of deletion-madness" because I was one of the above-mentioned "editors who are opposed to the censorship of Wikipedia." Yes, you successfully wore me out, and now I am just fighting against the deletion Japanese articles due to culturally biased literalistic interpretation of rules meant to be only guidelines. Dekkappai (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The overliteralistic interpretations argument could be used any AfD. Should no articles ever be deleted? Epbr123 (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've voted to delete before, have tagged for AfD, and for notability. Dekkappai (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So how do you judge which articles should be deleted? Epbr123 (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made my statements in favor of deletion at the appropriate AfDs. Look, this game got old before your RfC came up, Epbr. Nothing came of that but your targeting for retribution those who spoke against you. Obviously you guys are free to continuously nominate for deletion until you get your way. No point in continuing this discussion. Dekkappai (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer the question for you. You've formed your own personal set of notability guidelines and are literalisticly sticking to them. You're entitled to do that, but for the sake of consistency I prefer there to be projectwide guidelines. My personal view is that WP:BIO should be abolished and only WP:N be used, but I've never applied this in an AfD. Epbr123 (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for saving us both a lot of time by getting to the point and just putting your own words in my mouth, Epbr123. By the way, should I develop a terminal illness, I'll be sure to drop you a line and you can eviscerate the Japanese articles, probably most of Korean cinema too. You might inquire as to the health of Ivan whatsisname who edits the Russian opera articles. Who knows, should he leave us you might even take down a big trophy like Boris Godunov for your wall of severed-heads. Couldn't be many editors interested in defending that, after all... Dekkappai (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That the reason why there needs to be projectwide guidelines. The outcome of AfDs shouldn't have to rely on who happens to participate. My ability to get an article deleted shouldn't depend on whether you've left Wikipedia. Epbr123 (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll add my voice here. Not that I'll likely help, but I'll make the point that we do have "project wide guidelines" in the form of "notability" and notability guidelines regarding people. It's how these guidelines are interpreted and implemented that's the issue, and this is, at its core, a simple (yet damning) case of guidelines being selectively interpreted; i.e. "the letter of the law being used against the spirit of the law" in defiance of the supposed neutrality guidelines. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 05:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, the "the letter of the law" argument could be applied to any AfD; and Dekkappai does apply it to nearly every AfD. Epbr123 (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Spalding Gray

I'm bringing this up because his porn career is practically an urban legend - except this urban legend happens to be true. His WP bio glosses over it though. According to IAFD Spalding Gray appeared in six porn films between 1972 and 1978. (Sometimes credited as Rick Carson, Spaulding Grey, or Victor Alexander) At least two of these roles were non-sexual, but I know he did appear in one hardcore sex scene in Maraschino Cherry. His porn career is especially noteworthy because it didn't stop him from becoming a critically acclaimed playwright/actor - with guest starring roles on wholesome sitcoms like The Nanny.

His porn career is supposedly well-documented in one of his books, but I think he might've fudged some of the details. Here's an interview where he says he did one movie in 1976. His IAFD listing says he did more than that.

So does anyone know of any reliable sources that could clarify this?Reelm (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

XCritic

The WP page for XCritic was deleted. To avoid any COI issues I'm not going to re-add or revise it. Which is one of the main reasons it was removed. I'd submit to this project that XCritic.com is notable: Don Houston, one of the most influential reviewers in adult is on staff, we are quoted and featured in trade pubs like AVN and XBiz, we're quoted on box covers... And more. Again I leave it up to other people here to look at that, but I do think it deserves another stab through the proper WP process. Gkleinman (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively or additionally someone may want to look at adding an entry for Don Houston 01:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkleinman (talk • contribs)

Rachel Aldana

I've created this new article, and would appreciate editors' evaluation of its notability. It seems to be on approximately the same level as Milena Velba.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have concerns that some of the sources I've used are not reliable, but having said that being a Guinness record holder is definitely a claim to notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Being a Guinness record holder alone usually isn't enough to establish notability, but I think the newspaper and talk show coverage just about clinches it. There are some very dodgy sources in the article though. Epbr123 (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FAR of History of erotic depictions

History of erotic depictions has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Zantastik talk 09:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Userbox?

Anyone interested in creating a WikiProject Pornography userbox for display on user pages?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I wouldn't be ashamed to have it on my userpage, before anyone asks.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two:

Code	Result
{{Template:User WikiProject Pornography}}	XXXThis user is a participant in WikiProject Pornography.	Usage
{{Template:User WikiProject Pornography 2}}	XXXThis user is a participant in WikiProject Pornography.	Usage

Also, feel free to add yourself to Category:WikiProject Pornography members. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyleft/Free

The mentioning of copyleft images on the frontpage is incorrent. Copyleft refers to licenses that require derivative works to be equally free, while evidently is meant a "free license". -- Bryan (talk|commons) 14:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

IAFD as WP:RS?

Could other editors comment about this exchange:

• User talk:Will Beback#List of African-American porn stars and List of Hispanic porn stars
• User talk:Malik Shabazz#Lists of porn stars

There has been some discussion about the reliability of the Internet Adult Film Database as a WP:RS. This may be a stupid question, but is the fact that a person has an entry in the database sufficient to establish that she or he is a pornstar? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't feel like I can comment, because I have "original research"—in other words, I helped run the IAFD for several years (and remain a moderator on rec.arts.movies.erotica, whose mods run [sic] the IAFD). But for what it's worth, entries in the IAFD are supposed to be based on the credits in the film. Far too many straight porn box covers list actors and actresses who are not in the film. Credits, too, can be iffy on occasion. The most accurate entries are those which have an accompanying review, because that means someone who knows what the actresses and actors look like have paired a credit to someone who actually performs in the film. But since that's not all the films in the IAFD, errors do sometimes creep in when the entry is based on the credits. I'd say it is as reliable as IMDB, although updates often lag. (For example, the gay porn star Stonie just underwent a partial sex-change operation and now performs in straight porn as Brittany Coxx. That information had not been added in the past several months, but it is there now.) - Tim1965 (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm one of the editors of IAFD and the answer is no. As Tim says, IAFD relies mostly on credits and reviews. Just because the person has an entry on IAFD does not necessarily mean s/he is a performer. Sometimes the person can be an extra or just be behind the scenes. We don't check every single movie to ascertain every single role. As for WP:BLP concerns in making lists with unsourced entries (almost all pseudonyms), it's contentious material about living persons that is unsourced that should be challenged and removed. I guess if a pseudonym is similar to or is the same name as another person's name where there may be confusion, that could be contentious. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I think what I'm hearing is that the mere existence of an entry doesn't mean anything, but a review that says so-and-so appears in the film indicates a higher likelihood that the person is a performer.

As a side note, I've always had the impression that the reviews come from only a handful of sources. Does that mean the screening process for reviews is more rigorous than for database entries? If so, do the reviews rise to the level of WP:RS?

I ask based on Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Use of electronic or online sources:

An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may, exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics. In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material and challenge or correct any factual errors, they could have an adequate level of integrity. This exception would only be appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online. (emphasis in original)

Just wondering. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

IAFD does make corrections based on user feedback, usually pointing out reviewer mistakes in identification or omission/inclusion of some act. Some reviewers like AVN's are so brief (list title, credits, and a short paragraph general review) that they rarely introduce mistakes unless the movie itself made a mistake (like cast listings). I think it's pointless to have a list of porn stars beyond notable ones that have an article if it means you have a bunch of citations to prove they exist. Vinh1313 (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Real names of performers section

I think that we need to redo this section. It is an extremely conservative interpretation of WP:BLP and shows a misunderstanding of what the word contentious means. In short, contentious means inciting an arguement.

WP:BLP does not require that real names of pornographers be sourced. It only requires that real names be sourced if there is possibility of inciting arguement based on the real name.

Also, all IMDB suggested edits are editor-reviewed--IMDB isn't a wiki. I think we're misreprenting IMDB on here, because it's relatively hard to vandalize IMDB.

Section reprtinted below for convenience:

Real names of performers If the birth name of a performer is being added to an article, note that per WP:BLP we must ensure that it is sourced from reliable sources and it is equally clear what should happen if the source is not reliable:

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." (emphasis original)

This creates a problem with respect to the Internet Movie Database, as it is not what can be considered reliable. The problem with the "biography" page on IMDB is that anyone can add information to it. As a consequence, it is entirely possible for someone to "vandalize" the IMDB page by adding a random name to the biography page, then turn around and use IMDB as a source for adding the name to Wikipedia.

Fredsmith2 (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please see this archived discussion and the forum discussion that set it off on AdultDVDTalk. Porn still carries a stigma. Ex-performers still get fired from regular jobs. Porn people get stalked. Unless the performer or producer's name is published by reputable news sources or the person goes public with his/her name, don't post it. Some pornographers, not all, work publicly under their real names. The same rule applies. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, and I can understand that, but it doesn't change my request for this section to be updated. We're really misinterpreting WP:BLP with this section. Perhaps if we want to continue to quote it, we should change WP:BLP to be consistent with your previous statement, adding a section on real names for people who operate under a pseudonym. We need to operate wikipedia according to how the policies are now, not how we want them to be or how we're guessing they will be in the future. Fredsmith2 (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy... The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." Considering that the supermajority of pornographers are people who are relatively unknown under WP:NPF (it isn't their real names that is making them notable) and intentionally use pseudonyms to guard their privacy, I regard any inclusion of their "real names" as contentious and requires verification to a reliable secondary source. I use quotations because I've seen people put in another person's name as a defamatory joke. Further, I don't consider IMDB to be a reliable source with respect to their biographies. I get tons of submissions about pornagraphers at IAFD that cite to IMDB that turn out to be wrong when I verify it against whatever 2257 information I may have available. I have no idea how IMDB verifies things like personal information like name, birth location, birthday, height, weight etc beyond leaving it up there until someone submits another entry to "correct it". To me that doesn't constitute "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Vinh1313 (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

XCritc

Whoever previously deleted the XCritic page did so with some extremely disparaging remarks about me, the site I used to run and XCritic. The short term solution was to create a new XC page. This is not the best answer because of obvious WP:COI. I submit to the WP Pornography Project that XCritic is notable and deserves some sort of entry in WP. I think the best answer is going to be for someone else to re-author that page. My entry is really meant as a placeholder for Google to purge it's current cached page. If you'd like to see the issue here's a link to the Google cashed page. Thanks. Gkleinman (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify here: the admin who deleted the page had nothing to do with the defamatory comments on a version of the page created by an unconnected user. As I understand it, Google's cache will be purged on the next crawl anyway, whether the page is deleted or a new page replaces it. The only issue is whether adequate independent, published sources can be found to show that XCritic is notable. Gwernol 18:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a solution at all; and you know it. The page was already deleted; and during google's next crawl the "libellous" page would have vanished from the cache. Recreating your COI laden non-notable page is not a solution and I have to admit I think you know this. If it's a problem take it up with goggle, don't use wikipedia for your self promotion. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and just to note googling for xcritic doesn't even have the cached page appear within the first 5 pages of results. So the problem is pretty minor. --Blowdart | ^talk 20:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel there is a renewed case for notability for XCritic. Another Citation in a Major Trade Mag for the industry and now pending membership in the Xrated Critics Association. If that goes through would this project be willing to take another assessment at notability? (provided of course I don't write the article? Gkleinman (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

XCritic is now a member of XRCO. Does that help Notability? From IMDB "The organization is an amalgamation of established reviewers representing a wide range of adult publications, including Adam Film World, Hustler, AVN and many retail Internet sites."Gkleinman (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there are several members of XRCO (or the organizations they represent) that don't have articles due to notability issues. These include even publications like adam film world and websites like adultdvdtalk. The key is non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources beyond press releases according to WP:WEB. The problem with pornography is that most coverage comes from adult press like *AVcough* don't have a sterling reputation for veracity or independence. Give it some time. Vinh1313 (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Are there solid examples of coverage of notworthy adult outlets outside of the standard trades (AVN & XBiz)? It seems like these two are the arbiters of notability in the space. Especially an article that isn't just a rehash of a press release. Gkleinman (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Best example is WantedList whose notability was clearly established because the company was extensively written about by Wired and AsianWeek. The fact the company also won awards didn't hurt. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Female adult bio

There's a discussion going on at Template talk:Female adult bio about the removal of weight data and maybe others. Input from others would be appreciated. Dekkappai (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy-delete for Template:User Pornography?

A speedy-delete tag has been placed on Template:User Pornography because it's not being used. Use it or lose it, people! (If it's not worth using, that's fine too. But there were at least two prior calls for a User Template, so one was created.) - Tim1965 (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There's at least one similar userbox: User:UBX/porn. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Pornographic film series

{{User:Lady Aleena/Film series/Pornographic}}

Someone added a slew of pornographic films to the film series lists. However a lot of them have no articles. I am not sure if this fall under your project, but here is the list, wiki linked and ready to have articles written. It is transcluded from my user space, but feel free to edit that list whenever you want. All of the film series titles links are already made with (film series) appended to them. If you want me to, I can move this into your project space as a start for a film list. Hope this helps your project. - LA @ 13:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this list going to be used, or can I just delete it as no work will be done to write these articles? - LA @ 14:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Jewish porn stars

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Category:Jewish porn stars might be of interest to other members of this WikiProject. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Boys in the Sand

Boys in the Sand is under reassessment for Good article status. Discussion of the recent nominations are on the article's talk page and the reassessment discussion may be found here. Otto4711 (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting the "six rule"

This statement has been used by various editors to delete filmographies.

“ Filmographies are to be limited to six films at most; any additional listings above that number must meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. Performer or filmmaker's first movie.

2. Movies that have garnered awards (for the entire movie, or the performer's work in the movie).

3. Movies that the performer has been in that have received mainstream news attention - e.g., films such as Deep Throat and Behind the Green Door.

4. Movies that themselves have individual entries in the Wikipedia.

5. Performer or filmmaker's last movie (of their career, not their latest film).

”

I now feel this has reached a disruptive level where edit warring and hard feeling have been nurtured as a result of what seems to be an arbitrary number - six. Although the intent of this may have been laudable wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so space is not much of a concern. Nor is there a common sense element, if an article lists ten films, for instance, do we really need to delete four of them "to be fair". I feel this guideline is well-meaning but deeply flawed. It also seems to me to be sexphobic, that is, against pornography as an art form. Instead of, like every other genre, articles treated on a case-by-case basis we are setting a guideline for all films in the genre. And that guideline is being used to delete useful content on articles. If an article lists "too many" films there are ways to address that to encourage a more thoughtful approach. Frankly I don't see a problem until a list is simply huge beyond helpful which I still feel should be addressed in better ways than simply deleting most of it. What I have been seeing is an editor deleting, by guess as to which ones to keep, most of a filmography with little to no regard to the subject. Which of their films is notable? What if they/their studio/the director didn't apply for the appropriate award? With nothing but the title of a film they guess which six to keep. On one deceased porn bio the 10-15 films was trimmed to 6. I think we can do better. Using the above guideline as a building block perhaps we can find a way to rewrite this a bit. I don't support any arbitrary number and see little issue with full filmographies with few caveats. For instance, perhaps listing all the original films with a note that many were recycled into "best of" or other compilations. Any thoughts? Benjiboi 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. My thoughts are that the word "Encyclopedic" (among many others) is consistently abused at Wikipedia to mean its exact opposite. " Encyclopedic" in my dictionary, means, "comprehending a wide variety of information; comprehensive". Wikipedia's guidelines themselves state, "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship, are encouraged..." Dekkappai (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Why is there any need to limit the number of films in a filmography? We don't leave out films for mainstream actors and there's no justification for leaving them out for porn actors. Otto4711 (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to continue to enforce the 6 rule simply because wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A list of unnotable movies tell me nothing beyond what IAFD does. You can always go beyond the 6 as long as you satisfy the criteria which was set by a previous consensus of the project. Vinh1313 (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. In some cases filmographies can run to over 300 films for female porn stars, and some of the straight male porn stars (Ron Jeremy, Peter North) run to well into the thousands. Listing all the films in those cases is excessive, especially when there are existing directories available online such as IMDB, IAFD and AFDB. Regarding the comment that "if an article lists ten films, for instance, do we really need to delete four of them 'to be fair'", if a film is notable enough to warrant mention in the body of the article, then it likely meets one or more of the "additional films" criteria mentioned above. Tabercil (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If you're going to cover a subject in an encyclopedia, you should do it encyclopedically. If the list overwhelms the article, there are many ways to deal with that. Put it in a hidden table, put it in a separate "Filmography" article, etc. But to intentionally leave out or remove valid information in certain areas but not in others is to be unencyclopedic, censorious, and against Wiki's own guidelines: "The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship, are encouraged..." Dekkappai (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with the "6 rule", although it should probably be permittable for stars to have there own separate Filmography article. A lot of mainstream actors have these. Epbr123 (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Welcome back, Epbr123. I think-- and I don't think I'm the only one who thinks this-- that the "6 rule", in light of the broader Manual of Style guideline, is arbitrary and censorious. There are many ways to organize an unwieldy list. Has anyone ever seen a list of TV episodes at a TV series article? Do they all need to be notable enough for their own article? Dekkappai (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To me, a more elegant solution would be to develop a guideline on ways to deal with larger lists rather than censor in any way those who don't have "hundreds" of films. Is listing 30 films that big of a deal? And if we don't know which have gotten awards, is their first, best, etc. then are we really the authorities to determine which 6 of the 30 should represent their career? Maybe a better approach is to develop some ways to address what size list is too long and how to address issues of a lengthy filmography. Benjiboi 19:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • If you can come up with a better method of presenting the information, more power to you. Just remember that whatever method that's chosen has to work for the prolific (e.g., Ron Jeremy on the male side and Nina Hartley on the female) as well as the one-hit wonders (Bambi Woods for instance). And I do not feel that simply plonking a honkin' great long list in the article is the best solution~ Tabercil (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there are numerous ways and frankly we do have honkin' great long lists on many articles and possibly that is the best way. For instance, we are likely to have the only objective treatment of the material because we aren't reviewing to boost sales in some way just stating it exists. Also on at least one article I'm dealing with, which frankly every detail is scrutinized, the number of films is disputed; was it 12 over over 30 and what do we do about compilations and "best of"s. I think there is room to manage all the concerns and even make suggestion on how to treat filmographies with respect to the many issues raised here already. Benjiboi 02:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"we are likely to have the the only objective treatment of the material because we aren't reviewing to boost sales in some way just stating it exists"... what, compared to IAFD? I am skeptical that any article has anything beyond a regurgitation of IAFD for the straight side. Not sure what's going on the gay end. Vinh1313 (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm going to retract that statement since I understand the biases of IAFD although I don't think wikipedia can be any more objective than what's available out there. Vinh1313 (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Benjiboi is referring to me as the one being "disruptive" and not using "common sense." Also, I guess I'm a "sexophobe," which is news to anyone that knows me. Adding a long list of titles doesn't make the article encyclopedic. I've seen so many articles that have no references and contain little biographical information. Adding titles to some of these articles doesn't make them any better. Instead of arguing about adding more movie listings, try correcting and adding to the information that is already there? The only thing I'm doing is following this project's guidelines, not being "disruptive." If the guideline is changed so that all movies are listed, then that's fine. Feel free to add those 100 movies listings to poorly written and mostly unreferenced articles. Until then, I'm going to abide by the WP:XXX guidelines. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually let's keep the focus on the issue, and frankly, as may be evident, this has been an issue in the past and is still a source of conflict but either of us started editing on these articles, so finding some solutions is likely in everyone's best interest. For the record, I'm generally opposed to deleting content for the sake of simply trimming because there is "too much". I'm hoping that we can find some ways to guide those who write and edit these articles that not only makes sense but applies policy fairly. The end goal is to have better written articles and I remain unconvinced that referring to an artist's filmography on IAFD (or elsewhere) would be upheld at FA and it seems to suggest us telling our editors to correct information over there and we'll link to it. As far as I'm concerned IARD remains a good source for generalized information but might not be the best for full filmographies. As for your stated concerns I agree that all articles should be sourced and well-written, full agreement there but articles develop organically and by concensus, they grow a bit here and someone adds an infobox there and every once in a while a complete makeover takes place. Let's find ways to work together so that these articles improve. Banjiboi 18:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Let me suggest some solutions: 1) Lists, not articles, should be created where the number of films is over 25. The justification here is that adult film industry (particularly the straight side) is different from the so-called mainstream industry. Many performers have large numbers of films to their credit, unlike so-called mainstream actors, so a larger list of films in the performer's article is permissible. But because many performers have exceedingly large numbers of film credits, a separate list-article is required if the number of films is larger than 25. Separate list-articles must be referenced in the performer's article. The listing of films in the performer's article should be at the bottom of the article, provide citations (and the citation should provide notability and a rationale for inclusion in the performer's article rather than in the list-article, when the number of films is larger than 25), and be titled "List of films" if the number of films is under 25 and "List of notable films" if the number of films is greater than 25. 2) List-articles must meet the criteria for lists. The list-article should attempt to meet Wiki's guidelines for lists (verifiability, citations, etc.), but with respect to the somewhat relaxed standards adopted by this Project (largely due to the way censorship and market forces act to delegitimize adult film and make published works about it difficult to find). Large numbers of films may itself establish notability for a list-article (especially if a large number were made in a very brief period of time, say, three years, or over a long period of time, say, over 5 years). Appearances in a large number of sequels may also establish notability for a list-article. 3) Editing of existing lists in a performer's article must adhere to the standards of notability and verifiability. Random cutting of a list in a performer's article to meet a pre-established number (whether six or 25 or whatever) is senseless. It is incumbent on contributors to maintain the quality of Wikipedia. When the list of films in a performer's article is too lengthy and a list-article must be created, it is not enough for a contributor to merely move the list of films to a list-article; the contributor must work to ensure that the list won't be deleted or chopped down. First, the contributor doing the moving should also move citations (if any) to the list-article. This guideline does not ask the contributor to do additional research, but merely move the existing research and some text to the new list-article. Wiki's existing guidelines for lists should be followed, with suitable relaxation under this Project's guidelines. Second, the contributor doing the moving must identify which films are notable and which are not, and retain the notable films in the performer's bottom-of-the-article listing. There may not be 25 notable films; so be it. More may be added to the performer's article once citations and notability have been established. But random assignment of films to the new list-article is not condoned, unless none of the films is notable or none of the films has any citations which could be used to give guidance to the contributor doing the moving. In this case, the article should change the heading for the listing of films to "Some films in which Jane Doe appeared." In such a circumstance, the list in the performer's article must be six or fewer films. 4) Films which remain in the main article should be notable. Contributors should make every effort, when writing new articles, to identify the performer's notable films, and only include those. This may mean a list will contain fewer films than the maximum allowed; that's fine. When contributors edit an article, the remaining films must be identified as notable (along with citations indicating such). Notability relies on the existing guidelines for such used by Wikipedia or this Project. Among these are: Award-winning; mentioned in the mainstream press; having cultural impact (which often overlaps with mainstream press; ex.: "Beyond the Green Door" or "Powertool"); having an impact in the industry (e.g., the "first" gonzo, the "first" hardcore, the "first" to show clowns, the "first" appearance of the performer, etc.) even if no other notability exists (e.g., the film may stink, but it was the first to use synch-sound); critical notice above-and-beyond the norm; economic impact (best-selling, best-renting, most costly, etc.). Contributors may not know which films are notable; in that case, a random selection of 25 films is acceptable, so long as the number included is six or fewer. Other contributors who later edit the article may move films in and out of the article and onto the list, based on notability standards. 5) When there are more than 25 films which are notable, the more-notable should be moved into the main body article rather than stay on a list at the bottom of the article. If, God willing, a performer has more than 25 films which are notable, the "most notable" should be mentioned in the body of the article, along with the rationales and citations. The list at the bottom of the article should then be titled, "Other notable films" (and the accompany endnote/footnote should provide a rationale for why the film is less-notable as well as the citation establishing notability).

Comments? - Tim1965 (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Pornproject: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 47 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, offhand, I'll note that Angelica Bella was winner of a 1993 Hot D'Or award, which means she meets the notability criteria established by this project. Megan Leigh got quite a bit of mainstream media attention as the result of her suicide (albeit, less coverage than Savannah or Shauna Grant, who suffered similarly tragic fates). And Jana Miartušová and Zsanett Égerházi (better known as Nella and Sandy, respectively) are very significant performers in the girl/girl porn genre. The articles need to be fleshed out better to establish the notability of these individuals, though, I agree. I'm not sure if A Vindication of the Rights of Whores falls under the scope of this project, but I will note that it was a milestone in the literature of sex worker rights and I think should be considered notable on that basis. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Luscious Lopez

There seems to be a user that goes by the handle, User:Xhy20, that likes to splice his own unverified opinions about Luscious in front of a already existing citation. I've been reverting him but he's now engaging in a revert war under an ip address. Oh be on the look out for any future citation splicing. I may have to ask for a semi-protect. Vinh1313 (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Pornographic film series - does this project want it or not?

I had created a list of pornographic film series based on the additions of them on the various film series lists. Almost all of the films need articles as do the series. I would like to move it to your project here to get it out of my user space and get people to actually do something with it. - LA @ 18:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it is within the scope of our project. However the supermajority of the videos are probably not notable under WP:MOVIE so that explains the lack of articles. I don't know what else to tell you. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Where to move the list would help me out a bit? Do you all just want it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/List of pornographic film series or something like that? - LA @ 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, of course. Sure, we can do that. I'll just post a link from the main project page. Go ahead and move it to get it off yours. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is all yours to do with what you think is best. - LA @ 00:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Watch

You may want to keep a close eye on your articles after this [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63590]--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 15:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"A Free Press for a Free People." Now who's up for a good book-burning?!... Dekkappai (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Dick Nasty

The article for Dick Nasty was gutted and then proposed for deletion over BLP concerns (WP:BLPN#Dick Nasty) after one editor added a lot of negative material sourced from Luke Ford. A Feb. 2008 version was less contentious but largely unsourced.[12] The article is now a stub. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dick Nasty? The race-car driving guy with that snickering mutt? Surely he's notable... :-) (But seriously-- check out all the sourcing at those two cartoon articles, and then tell me there's no double-standard at Wikipedia...) Dekkappai (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but remember that articles on cartoon characters don't have to follow WP:BLP or need as many citations, as the television programmes themselves are sources. Epbr123 (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Television programmes are sources? But DVDs, videos and magazines are not? Dekkappai (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Those can be used as sources as well. Epbr123 (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, question of sources aside, the point was that a totally unsourced article-- as both of those cartoon articles are-- would surely come up for blanking and/or deletion, were it on a less mainstream U.S. pop-culture subject-- whether living, dead or inanimate. Dekkappai (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's because everyone knows sources for these exist, without even having to look for them. Epbr123 (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Everyone" being whom? My Korean in-laws have never heard of these characters. Maybe they'd like to see some proof that they're not hoax articles... But you're saying English-Wiki works under the assumption that everyone knows every trivial aspect of U.S. pop-culture is worthy of an article, and gives these subjects a free pass. No sourcing necessary. On the other hand, a Korean children's TV series that has been running for decades-- Ppo Ppo Ppo for example[13]-- goes article-less, and would have to be very well-sourced to stave off an instant AfD after creation.... Non-Anglo/U.S. subjects don't have this automatic assumption of "notability"-- because we think, "sourcing in non-English... Does it even exist???" Thanks, Epbr123, I think you've just made my point. Dekkappai (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Although, on the other hand, Epbr123... If you're saying lack of sourcing indicates everyone knows the subject is notable, how about the next time an article on a Japanese erotic actress comes up for deletion, I point to the unsourced Japanese Wiki-article as evidence that she's so notable "everybody" knows the sourcing is out there, in Japan... We could call it the "Epbr123 Defence." Dekkappai (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Dick Dastardly article would never be AfDed, despite being unsourced, as most English-language Wikipedians would know that the article is able to be sourced. This wouldn't be the case for articles on subjects not well-known to English-language Wikipedians. This doesn't mean there are harsher rules for Japanese subjects, as the notablity criteria is the same for all subjects, regardless of country. Although, it is harder to prove the existence of sources on the more obscure subjects. Epbr123 (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've come across AfDs like Han (cultural). Picture Blues being put up for AfD. Multiply that by three, and then you have the absurdity of that. It means that subjects unknown to Anglo-phone editors are regarded more harshly than those that are known. And subjects known to editors here tend to be U.S. pop-culture. That's not good for Wikipedia, at least not in my book. Dekkappai (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Han is not U.S. pop-culture is what probable led to it's AfD, but the fact that the AfD resulted in a keep shows that the process is fair overall, and that there isn't a big problem here. Epbr123 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And I almost forgot a Rimsky Korsakov opera article I started which was put up for deletion within five minutes of its creation. No, this does NOT mean that AfD is working. This means it is a drain on Wikipedia's time. AfD results in articles and images on perfectly valid subjects being routinely unfairly deleted here, and when they are not, still editors' time is wasted defending absurdly-nominated articles from deletion and then reproducing the work some other editor did when the article or image is re-created. This is not an inclusionist/deletionist difference, as you once portrayed it, since you have probably created over a thousand stubs by now. This is a procedural difference. I say that AfD, as it is practised-- to delete articles on subjects of which one does not approve, or of which I have never heard-- is harmful to Wikipedia. AfD should be used to delete hoaxes and vanity pages. Period. Heresy, I know... Dekkappai (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Tania Russof

Could somebody knowledgeable please clean up/expand Tania Russof? For example, the filmography is too extensive, and the facts from the one main (Spanish) source are not referenced properly. Many thanks! —Zalktis (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Statistics in the articles

Just want to give everyone a heads-up on this discussion on Jimbo's talk page about the measurements on the various articles. Jimbo's comments on the matter: "In my opinion, virtually all such statistics should be removed with extreme prejudice as being from unreliable sources." Tabercil (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Real names in articles

Another relevant discussion to the group: Porn actors' birth names at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing BLP concerns - Tabercil (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the discussion is fueled more by grudges between editors. I'm really amused by the notion of obtaining real names by requesting COPPA filings suggested by an editor. Besides the fact that it's WP:Original Research, COPPA doesn't apply to this issue. Vinh1313 (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Images by Luke Ford

Images by Luke Ford are apparently being deleted from Commons as copyvio for lack of permissions at OTRS. The image links are currently being removed from the articles. • Gene93k (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 726 of the articles assigned to this project, or 39.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)