Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 9

Wikipedia's sexual agenda

The likely accidentally mistaken use of the moralistic term pornography instead of erotica is something this site needs to clean up. Pornography is certainly a useful word but it is a subset of erotica. The blithe assumption that erotica is pornographic (related to prostitution/immorality) is something the 19th-century inventor of the term would probably be happy with but it's not a trap this site needs to stay in.

Here is the Oxford dictionary definition of pornography. "Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement. Origin — Mid 19th century: from Greek pornographos ‘writing about prostitutes’, from pornē ‘prostitute’ + graphein ‘write’." It doesn't matter how commonly misused the term pornography is or how popular the moral judgment that erotica is pornographic is. Those are moral agenda non-neutral things that Wikipedia needs to do its utmost to avoid pushing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.2.200 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed the POV template. It really only belongs on articles. I have no objection to "WikiProject Erotica", if others are motivated to change the project name.

If you find "pornography" in an article, and the word "erotica" is genuinely more appropriate, then you can just make the edit changing it. If anyone disagrees with the edit then you can discuss it. (If the text is supported by a citation, and that source is using the word "pornography", then it's likely that the article should keep using the same term that the source uses.) Alsee (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree. I wouldn't mind either way if the project name changed, but would object to any wholesale change of pornography to erotica in articles. They have different implications and should be used distinctly. To my mind, erotica implies content that tries at once to be both sexually stimulating and artistic, whereas pornography is about stimulation only. I'm sure other people think of one category as being a subfield of another, but I expect there are different views about which is the subfield, some seeing pornography as erotica without artistic intent and others seeing erotica as pornography with artistic intent. I can't see a reason to privilege one view over the other and don't see either term as especially moralising. Mortee (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The artistic argument is a trap. Art cannot be defined. It is a subjective stance. Anything can be art. It only requires that a person take an artistic stance toward the thing. Oscar Wilde and others analyzed this in detail. Duchamp put a urinal in a museum. To avoid the "artistic" trap just realize that erotica is the broad term that encompasses anything erotic. Pornography, by contrast, is a subset of erotica that involves moral judgments and/or issues relating to prostitution. It is not at all necessary to wade into the muck of trying to define art. However, one can certainly discuss the way some define erotica and pornography in terms of that argument. It is not, though, an objective all-encompassing view of the topic. Objectively, erotica is simply anything produced by people that is erotic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.12.216 (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"I can't see a reason to privilege one view over the other and don't see either term as especially moralising." 1) Pornography, not erotica, is a term rooted in prostitution. That alone is reason enough to see it as a subset term. Erotica carries no such implication. 2) Trying to inject the arbitrary individualistic issue of the defining of artistic value into this discussion automatically creates hierarchies of moral judgement — A is "artistic"; B is "less artistic; C is "trashy". Oh? To who and whom? 3) It is a fact known to linguists that languages have very low tolerance for total redundancy. There is a reason why both erotica and pornography exist in our language. It is not because they are equivalent terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.12.216 (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

These two statements also contradict your point about not replacing the incorrect term with the accurate one: "They have different implications and should be used distinctly. ... "I can't see a reason to privilege one view over the other" Which one is it? They're different but they're equivalent (the same)? If your first sentence I quoted is correct then the incorrect term must be replaced by the correct one in any relevant case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.12.216 (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that your argumentation results in all erotica being subsumed by pornography. It creates hierarchic moral judgements and superimposes them on the entire subject. It turns the term erotica into "pornography striving, and failing" to be art (because art is pure and erotica will always be pornographic to some degree, thus tainted) — condemning all erotica as pornography. This is what happens when the erotic is inextricably tied to prostitution, a specific subset of erotic endeavor and consideration. Again, I will wager that the 19th-century inventor of term would be pleased with this view but it is hardly objective. Erotica, once again, is the broad category of anything created by humans that is erotic. Pornography can't be the same thing. Language has no use for total redundancy and pushes examples of redundancy into non-use (archaic words). You yourself said the two terms have different implications. Well, by subsuming erotica into pornography, by turning the superset into the subset, that is a grand moral judgment. It is exactly the moral agenda that makes the current state of this "pornography portal" non-objective. Erotica the term, by contrast, carries no moral judgement whatsoever. It merely tells the reader that the subject is erotic in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.12.216 (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

All I said was that we should use both words in articles, whichever what best describes the content involved. Somehow you take me to imply a "grand moral judgement" and to be "condemning all erotica as pornography", wanting to "subsume erotica into pornography". Not true. They're both useful terms, neither judgemental, despite etymology. (Besides, why should prostitution automatically imply immorality? Can't we describe prostitution neutrally either?)

All I would object to is any rule that erotic/pornographic content be described as erotica. That would limit our ability to describe things concisely. As I said, I have no strong objection to changing the name of the project (if that's your suggestion - you seemed to have a broader rule in mind.)

Annoyed as I am by your suggestion that I'm contradicting myself, which I'm not, I am particularly irritated by you suggesting that I'm moralising or creating "hierarchical moral judgements". That's exactly what I'm not doing. I'm saying that pornography and erotica can both be used without attaching some idea that pornography must be wrong, which is not my view at all. This project page involves precisely those people who try to improve Wikipedia's coverage of erotica-related subjects. Starting off by baselessly accusing them of having a "sexual agenda" was a sure-fire way to annoy people. Could you perhaps clarify exactly what you're suggesting in a form that we could have a !vote on? That would help us avoid this essay-battle. Mortee (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Multiple changes in dot com websites

Re: [1]

There have been a number of these by various single purpose accounts. Thoughts?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Findings of discussion at IRC (quoted with permission) regarding an attempt to change www.christymack.com to www.christymackporn.com:

"...has the look of some sort of content aggregation site. It links to pornactress.net which in turn leads to naughtyamerica.com, with various payment options..."

"...if I had to guess, I'd guess that www.christymackporn.com and this whole naughtyamerica.com operation is pirating the content from www.christymack.com and getting rich quick..."

"...looking further into Naughty America, they do look to be a reasonably legitimate business, I wonder if some of the sites which link to Naughty America are run by affiliates and they're earning money by pushing traffic towards Naughty America..."

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Transgendrer or Transsexual porn

I have started a debate whether Transgender pornography should be redirected to Transsexual pornography anyone opinions for or aganist go to Talk:Transsexual pornography. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Spam alert

Please be on the lookout for the addition of "porn" to official websites for porn actress articles. This is happening now by sock accounts and IPs.

Example:

www.bonnierotten.com --> www.bonnierottenporn.com [2]

Also, please remove the addition of www.pornactress.net/ on sight.

Thank you.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• I reverted a bunch of these coming out of 185.17.26.0/24. This address range has a history of adding spam links to non-porn articles too. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Are the people notable?

Deauxma, Sara Jay, Peta Jensen, Kendra Sunderland, Nina Elle, Summer Brielle and Sarina Valentina notable? Especially Sarina as she has been nominated for the following awards:

• 2010 Transgender Erotica Awards nominee— “Best Web Girl of the Year”
• 2011 Tranny Awards winner — “Best Single Model”
• 2011 Tranny Awards nominee — “Best Sex Scene”— America’s Next Top Tranny 14 (with Tiffany Starr) and One Night Stand (with Brian Bonds)
• 2011 Tranny Awards nominee — “Best Hardcore Performer”
• 2011 Transgender Erotica Awards winner — “Best Solo Model”, “Best Web Girl of the Year”
• 2012 Tranny Awards winner — “Best Single Model”
• 2012 NightMoves Awards nominee — “Best Transsexual Performer”
• 2012 Transgender Erotica Awards winner — “Best Solo Model”, “Best Web Girl of the Year”
• 2012 Tranny Awards nominee — “Best Single Model”
• 2012 Tranny Awards nominee — “Best Single Website”
• 2013 NightMoves Awards nominee — “Best Transsexual Performer”
• 2013 The Fanny Awards nominee — “Transsexual Performer of the Year”
• 2013 AVN Awards nominee — “Transsexual Performer of the Year”
• 2013 AVN Awards nominee — “Best Transsexual Scene”— Forbidden Lovers (with Robert Christian)
• 2013 Tranny Awards nominee — “Best Web Girl of the Year”
• 2013 Transgender Erotica Awards winner — “Best Web Girl of the Year”
• 2014 Tranny Awards winner — “Best Web Girl of the Year”
• 2014 AVN Awards nominee — “Transsexual Performer of the Year”
• 2014 The Fanny Awards nominee — “Transsexual Performer of the Year” -Dwanyewest (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• As a general answer without going case-by-case: probably not. Nominations no longer count towards PORNBIO notability and editor consensus on what constitutes a "well-known" industry award has tightened considerably. Awards like Urban X (Sara Jay) and niche categories of better-known awards (Deauxma) don't meet that standard. I'm not familiar enough with the Transgender Erotica Awards to make an instant assessment, but I would be skeptical. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• I would think that Deauxma & Sara Jay are pretty much lost causes at this late date, Summer Brielle failed at AfD relatively recently, and I know nothing about Nina Elle. Guy1890 (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

What bout Alexis Fawx she has received three nominations from XBIZ, including MILF Performer of the Year and Girl/Girl Performer of the Year. She also picked up another nomination for Best Supporting Actress for her role in "The Preacher's Daughter" (Wicked). The film also received a nomination for Best Feature. Also she had 2 AVN nominations including MILF Performer of the Year. She also received a nomination for Best Supporting Actress for her role as wife and mother in "The Preacher's Daughter" (Wicked). Dwanyewest (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

In a word no, unless you have real sources that clearly pass the gng, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

So the nominations don't mean shit Spartaz unless they have sources or the nominations themselves aren't noteworthy and Sara Jay AVN hall of fame doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO and the Tranny Awards count for nothing for Sarina Valentina? Dwanyewest (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously otherwise nominations would not have been removed from Pornbio, or the awards are significant and well known. Essentially any blp should be able to pass the gng. If they don't, well they won't survive afd. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Despite my comment above, Sara Jay now passes the letter of WP:PORNBIO with the AVN Hall of Fame induction, however such performers are getting redirected to the hall of fame lists if they don't have enough reliably sourced content. In the case of deleted articles, a certain editor insists they should go through deletion review before coming back. Unless the performer can pass GNG, recreating an article is going to be a battle. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record, • Gene93k, my position has been not that all deleted articles must go through DRV (although salted articles generally should), but that deleted articles should not be restored by administrative fiat. The relevant part of the comment I think you're referring to is "reinstatement on request would not be appropriate. Because this was an AFD deletion, the article is ineligible for WP:REFUND, and endrunning the established processes should not be encouraged".[3] Otherwise you're on target. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

When did the AVN Award for Best New Starlet become not a marker of notability?

As the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abella Danger is suggesting it would seem like there has been a rollback of policy? Why was this not discussed first? GuzzyG (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The anti-porn Wikipedia editors don't give a damn about adult film awards. Guy1890 (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Or about the meaning of the English language. At WP:Articles for deletion/Crystal Knight, they're arguing, in unison, that Knight—despite having been the host of a Playboy TV television show, having been on multiple record covers (including an Eminem single), having been in multiple rap videos, and having featured in an ad campaign for Pony athletic gear—never "featured" in mainstream media, she merely "appeared" in it. Fuck it. If the jihadists want a porn-free encyclopedia, and nobody with any authority gives a fuck, there's no point in fighting them. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 9/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Pornography.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Pornography, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Cartoon pornography to Erotic animation

The article Cartoon pornography, which is tagged as part of this project, has been proposed for merger with Erotic animation. See Talk:Erotic animation#Merger for discussion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Eva Lovia

Could someone from this WikiProject take a look at Eva Lovia and assess it? It's recently created and filled with puffery and other POV content. I've tried to do a bit of general technical cleanup, but really am not very failiar with the style typically used in articlesa about adult film actors. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Is Danni Daniels notable

Is Danni Daniels notable she did star in the film Peaches Does Herself here is a reference as proof [4]. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• First look: comes up short on WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT and WP:GNG. PORNBIO #3 says "featured in multiple mainstream media." WP:ENT specifies significant roles in multiple notable productions. As for GNG, the Variety article lacks depth and the Vice article is not enough by itself. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Are these sources considered reliable?

Which of the following, if any, does this WikiProject consider to be reliable sources for use in biographies of porn actors/actresses?

1. IAFD
2. Penthouse
3. AVN
4. Adultdvdtalk
5. Xbizawards
6. Peeperz
7. Xxxbios

I need this info to help settle a content dispute over a pornbio. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources for what? Date and place of birth? "Real" name? Number of films? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Simple question, do these sources pass WP:RS or not? There are obviously editors who think they are suitable for use in a pornbio, but also editors who claim that they are not useable as they fail RS. I'm trying to establish which of the two claims is correct. Once that has been done, I will know which course of action to take next in an effort to find a solution to a dispute. I have no opinions on the sources, as the subject is well outside my area of interest or expertise, which is why I am asking members of this WP for their input. Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Without knowing any of the context, I can only say that IAFD is user-submitted so it is not an RS except perhaps for the number of films a performer has appeared in. Despite what Spartaz or Hullaballoo Wolfowitz tells you, AVN is the adult industry's Variety or Billboard, and it's probably as reliable as any trade paper is. XBIZ Awards is an RS for the winners of the awards. I can't offer an opinion about Penthouse without context: are you asking about breast size and the model's likes/dislikes or are you asking about some of the meatier articles they've published. Adult DVD Talk is a sales website "shopping portal" that hosts a forum that posts what are represented to be interviews with adult actors and actresses; I don't know anything about their veracity or reliability. I've never heard of Peeperz or XXX Bios.

The New York Post is generally considered to be a reliable source despite printing crap like this on its cover, so Wikipedia's standards are clearly somewhat flexible. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Without specifics, AVN is the only one that is non-trivial and reliable in most instances. Since AVN publishes press releases that look just like independent news articles, one has to be careful. IAFD, like IMDb, may be a reliable sources of filmograpies but is not biographical details. Award wins verify the awards themselves. As for Penthouse and other men's magazines, beware of kayfabe. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• I believe that the purpose of this thread here is to try & help resolve the issue here, which is the talk page of an article that was recently, unilaterally re-directed without any discussion (one of many done by the same user over who knows how long of a time as of this late date). Guy1890 (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• As to the substance of the initial question above, please see the following for established guidance on many of these sources:

AVN, XBIZ & AdultDVDTalk.com - the latter of which is really just an interview website

IAFD

a Penthouse link would be a reliable source for at least if (& when) a person appeared in that magazine

xxxbios.com likely isn't a reliable source for much of anything

I don't have much experience with peeperz.com Guy1890 (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

If it helps to establish how good or bad the article was before it was turned into a redirect, This is the last version as an article. Reading the above comments, it seems that there are no major BLP issues, although referencing could be a bit better in places, e.g. Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference. The material referenced to xxxxbios would probably benefit from another source. Mjroots (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• The xxxbios.com reference is really just an unnecessary duplicate citation to this valid citation (that was already in the article), and the peeperz.com reference is another unnecessary duplicate citation to this valid citation (which was also already in the article). Part of the problem with this article recently was that it was created (and recently, heavily-edited) by some Wikipedia newbs (one that likely has a COI that I've already told them about). Guy1890 (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Nothing that can't be sorted by the normal editing process then? OK, in that case I'm going to restore the article and file a procedural AfD. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about infobox at A Young Man's World

I started the discussion about the infobox used at A Young Man's World. Join in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Elijah Daniel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elijah Daniel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elijah Daniel (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

AfD

The Lana Rhoades article has been nominated for keeping or redirecting. Mjroots (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The Lana Rhoades article is delete! 6 votes for Keep and 5 for delete! What is going here!? This is Wikipedia or anti-porn wikipedis?--Tori Black is back (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Tori Black is back: AfD debates are not majority votes. They are meant to reach editor consensus based on Wikipedia policies and evidence presented. In this case, just winning a porn award without being proven interest from reputable published media did not establish notability. Wikipedia is not anti-porn, but editors are cracking down on poorly sourced porn biographies. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Crush fetish article

Hi, all. Can we get some opinions on the current state of Crush fetish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? I started a discussion at Talk:Crush fetish#Recent expansions. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox adult biography

Template:Infobox adult biography has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox person. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Academic journal source: Porn Studies

I've created a new subsection "Academic journals" under "Useful links" > "Sources", and added Porn Studies as the first entry within this subsection. An article in this academic journal was instrumental in saving Mike Adriano from deletion (AfD 2017-11-27). Deletion advocates in that discussion disparaged Porn Studies as "a journal with negligible reach and citations" and as "a minor academic journal". These and all similar attempts at dismissal and marginalization are refuted by the journal's SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), available at its SJR page. These were documented in the AfD, but bear repeating here, especially since this highly visible project page has a higher level of consensus than any AfD discussion. The current SJR quartile rankings for Porn Studies are:

• Top quartile (57th out of 702) among Cultural Studies journals
• Top quartile (30th out of 118) among Gender Studies journals
• Second quartile (103rd out of 230) among Social Psychology journals

Not bad for a journal that began publication in 2014. Also, it can be seen from the journal's SJR page that these quartiles, and most other metrics, for Porn Studies have increased sharply from 2015 (when SJR began tracking it) to 2016.

The existence of Porn Studies is a compelling reason to check Google Scholar for any pornography-related topic, however unscholarly that topic might appear at first glance. The real question is not whether this journal should be taken seriously. It's why the world had to wait until 2014 for a peer-reviewed academic journal devoted specifically to pornography studies. We in the 21st century like to believe we're beyond the inhibitions of the 1950s and the Victorian era, but we're not—not entirely.

—Syrenka V (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Anna Bell Peaks, new article

Hi.
I just created Anna Bell Peaks. I tried my best, but the article can be improved further. Kindly contribute to the article to make it better. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 08:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sexy Hot Award

Hi. Sorry, I don't speak english very well and I was starts to edit recently. I create the article Sexy Hot Award. The same is proposed for deletion. Really the references are the award itself and the network of the channel. But exist a independent jury formed by directors and producers[5] that defines the winners for some categories and to other the winners is defines per audience votes on internet. Do you think this information can save the article? Actualy it is the only one current adult award in Brazil. Guilherme Burn (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Questioning the notability

These articles Viviane Brunieri, Carol Miranda and Júlia Paes about brazilian pornografic actress do not atempt WP: PORNBIO and WP: PORNSTAR.

The person has won a well-known and significant industry award. Prizes in categories of sets and sets are excluded from consideration.

NNo for all

The person made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as the beginning of a trend in pornography; starring an iconic, innovative or blockbuster feature; or be a member of an industry hall of fame, such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent.

N Viviane Brunieri and Carol Miranda

 Half done Júlia Paes - Some of his films have large audience

The person has appeared several times in notable conventional media.

 Half done Their appearances were in questionable reliability programs, always guests appearances, to discuss polemics of their personal lives and not their work in the erotic industry.

I propose one discussion to delete these articles.

Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Guilherme Burn: While the three performers don't appear to pass WP:PORNBIO at first glance, Miranda and Paes may have enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:BASIC. That said, bundling different porn stars into a single AfD debate is almost never a good idea. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry @Gene93k:, i'm bundling because I consider the three cases are similar.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @Gene93k: Let's discuss individually Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viviane Brunieri. Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Brunieari has been deleted. Now let's dicuss Miranda. Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Internet Adult Film Database templates

I have two questions about the Internet Adult Film Database templates.

• 1 - Ambiguity properties on Wikidata

There is an ambiguity with the properties attached to this template in Wikidata, IAFD male performer ID (P4505) and IAFD female performer ID (P3869), the correct one would be to only exist an "IAFD person ID" as like Adult Film Database person ID (P3351) . I believe that this ambiguity occurred because of the second parameter gender. It was mistaken for a secondary ID, in fact it is just a layout parameter for the IAFD site.

All links below point to the same element on the IAFD site.

http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid=glynn

http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid=glynn/gender=f/ginger-lynn.htm

http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid=glynn/gender=m/ginger-lynn.htm

http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid=glynn/gender=d/ginger-lynn.htm

• 2 - Unite templates

Despite differing studio and distributor, apparently the IAFD uses the same ID for both.

[http://www.iafd.com/studio.rme/studio=661]

[http://www.iafd.com/distrib.rme/distrib=661]

[http://www.iafd.com/studio.rme/studio=912]

[http://www.iafd.com/distrib.rme/distrib=912]

It would be the case to unite the two templates {{IAFD distributor}} and {{IAFD studio}}?. Which should prevail?

Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

WeKinglyPigs

Someone's been deleting references and/or info sourced from WeKinglyPigs.com. I noticed it in List of Playboy Playmates of 2005, it might be happening in many other articles too. One comment claims it to be an user generated fan page, I don't know if it is or isn't. 91.154.188.185 (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

My first impression is that WeKinglyPigs.com is not a reliable source. According to Wikipedia's guideline concerning sources, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Nothing I have seen at WeKinglyPigs.com leads me to believe it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You're talking about Playboy—I find it hard to believe there aren't any alternative sources that can be cited. If you can't find anything else, I would recommend looking for a list of Playmates on the Playboy website. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

One editor says in Talk:List of Playboy Playmates by birthplace: Yes, I believe that WeKinglyPigs (WKP) is reliable and have listed them as such at the Pornography WikiProject. The maintainer of the site has access to (if not actual ownership of) every issue of the magazine. I don't want to give out personal information about a third party but I have had email correspondence with the maintainer and have confidence in them as a source for the information on their site. Additionally, they try to gather additional info from other reliable sources.

And it is indeed listed as such. Though, that might've been put there without (others) recognition about its reliability. 91.154.188.185 (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you notice how old that discussion was? It took place 7-1/2 years ago. Since 2010, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have become more restrictive with respect to questionable sources. Also, many of the Playmates are still alive, so their articles are subject to even higher sourcing standards. (See WP:Biographies of living persons.) But ultimately, Wikipedia works by consensus. If editors agree that a source (such as, say, the New York Post) is reliable, it's reliable; if they agree that a source (such as the Daily Mail) isn't reliable, it isn't.
If you have a specific article for which you want to cite WeKinglyPigs.com (or where the website is already cited as a source), you can ask for other editors' opinions at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you find that you're clashing with another editor who keeps removing it and you think that editor is wrong, the Noticeboard is the right place to bring your disagreement and let other editors offer their opinions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Height and weight?

Would height and weight be considered useful information for a porn actress's infobox? Obviously it would be for a wrestler and not for a banker, and I thought it would be for a porn actress, but apparently there is disagreement. This came up at Talk:Stormy Daniels. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's useless trivia that almost never cites a reliable source. (The IAFD's content is user-generated and thus it is not a reliable source.) Also, I assume athletes' heights and weights are measured periodically (before a fight, at the start of a season) -- but for a performer, when was the weight measured? When she premiered? When she retired? Before or after her last breast enhancement? As I wrote, the numbers are useless trivia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Not a reliable source? I thought IAFD was agreed to be a reliable source here. 91.154.188.185 (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what would make you think so, but IAFD is made up of user-generated content (a fancy way of saying that its information is submitted by members of the public and it isn't necessarily fact-checked), and consequently is not considered a reliable source. On top of that, most performers are still alive, which means Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living persons applies. Such biographies require better sources than are necessary for an article about a business or a car or a political viewpoint, because people can sue for libel or defamation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Everything in the whole world is "user-generated", meaning that all the facts are some way generated by a human.

And now that I looked what the project says about these sources: IAFD ok for filmographies, but it says opinion is split on whether their biographical information is reliable. WeKinglyPigs is listed under "Other sources", and said Info comes directly from the magazine or other reputable sources. 91.154.188.185 (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

List of pornographic performers by decade

Recently I redirected List of pornographic actresses by decade to list of pornographic actors by decade with the aim to include pornographic actors in only one list. But this name seems ambiguous. It is also being questioned whether the article is a list or index. And also if the list needs to be referenced.

As the article is one of the most popular of the project I solicit the opinion of other editors in the discussion.

Talk:List of pornographic actors by decade#No gender separation

Talk:List of pornographic actors by decade#List or Index?

Talk:List of pornographic actors by decade#References

Thanks! Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Ariana Marie and Draft:Lela Star

I have refunded these two previously deleted articles to draft, as I have noticed mainstream reporting on the article subjects since their deletion. In the case of Lela Star, she was widely reported in various "celeb" news outlets for two stints as a model for Kanye West's clothing line. In the case of Ariana Marie, she has picked up a boatload of additional nominations (but no wins) for her performances, and has been profiled (as one of several performers, in each case), in a number of mainstream magazines. I'm on the line about whether to promote either of these back to mainspace. I note that in both cases, the performers have an unusually large number of Wikipedia articles in other-language Wikis. This is sometimes the result of an enthusiastic multi-lingual publicist, but in Marie's case, at least, the selection appears a bit random for that. bd2412 T 14:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Sue Hamilton

The article for Sue Hamilton differs from the information linked in IMBD, including her birth date, birth name, and if she is dead or alive. Does anyone know if this is linking to the wrong page or if WP is wrong? LongLiveMusic (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Biographical information in IMDb is user-generated and is sometimes wrong. See WP:IMDBREF. If a reliable source contradicts IMDb, I would trust that source. The IMDb information may get corrected eventually (e.g. Paul Thomas (director)). • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Delsrting

I am turning in RN, so could someone work with Enterprisey on adding this to Delsort? On many PORNBIO AFDs I see that this mentioned, but it is not in the regular listings. Thx ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Pornography move and update

Hi. I moved the Portal:Pornography to Portal:Erotica and Pornography that seemed to be the original idea of the portal and encompasses broader concepts than simple commercial pornography. I invite you to comment here. Thanks.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Blacked website should it have an article?

Should Blacked.com the website created by Greg Lansky exist as a website I would like some opinions. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I assume you're asking whether the website should have a Wikipedia article, not whether the website should exist. Does it satisfy Wikipedia's notability guideline? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I meant as an article sorry I was not clear in expressing what I meant.

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Golden Age of Porn

This article has at least one significant inaccuracy. It states that "(after 1973) Production was concentrated in New York City". This is not really true. There were two locations where porn movies were mainly made in the USA in the 1970s - New York and San Francisco. The San Francisco/Bay Area scene was every bit as large as the New York scene, in fact it was probably bigger. Indeed many of the movies listed as being "films of the period" were a product of the San Francisco scene as were a great many of the performers listed and a couple of the producers.

Also, the lists themselves have many significant omissions. Where are, for example, Femmes de Sade, Babyface, Sex World and Ecstasy Girls in the "films of the period" list? Where are Leslee Bovee, Sharon Thorpe, Desiree West, Linda Wong and Serena, to name just a few missing SF performers, in the list of performers? Why no mention of Spinelli/Sam Weston in the "producers"?

GoldAgeGuy (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Outline of the Wikiproject

Anyone who wants to help build the outline about the project. Draft:Outline of erotica and pornography

Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Is being a hall of famer notable?

Is Sara Jay notable for being an AVN hall of Fame winner. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• It seems odd that winning an award would bestow notability, but being inducted into the Hall of Fame of the same organization that gives the awards would not. bd2412 T 22:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Combined with other accomplishments it should be... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sara_Jay. At a loss to understand why her page doesn't qualify Ilovepitts (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Winning awards or being inducted into a hall of fame by themselves are not considered sufficient to establish a person's notability. You also need to show that they have been the subject of coverage in multiple reliable sources, preferably not trade journals. Did you read the comments at the top of the draft? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Porn tropes

Is there an article on common porn tropes and porn stock characters? (ie. pizza guy, pool boy, gardener; not having enough money to pay for something, getting out of a ticket; what "Debbie" refers to, ... ) -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

RFC on nude photos in Going commando

Please participate in RFC on nude photos in Going commando. Thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 16 January 2019

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is against moving this project as proposed. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 18:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography → Wikipedia:WikiProject Erotica and Pornography – As discussed HERE, I believe that the project loses a lot by focusing only on pornography, and ignoring erotic art. The distinction between pornography and erotica is largely subjective and reflects societies standards. [6] The scope of the wikiproject was originally biographies of pornstars and was expanded to pornography in general. I believe now is the time for a new expansion of scope. Guilherme Burn (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see why the name of the project would need to change in order to assert this scope. bd2412 T 14:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment this proposal was discussed at the project for ONE day before filing this request. I think this should not have been requested without further discussion on the project, since the lack of supporting opinions, or opinions in general seems to indicate that the proposal lacked discussion to ascertain the activity of the projects members. I would suggest this move be closed to await a few months worth of on-project discussions before having a need for a move request. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this proposal puts the cart before the horse. First, the nom should build consensus to change the scope of the WikiProject. Then, and only then, should we discuss renaming the WikiProject. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Update wikiproject page

@Epbr123, WikiLeon, Art javier, Chewyrunt, Correogsk, Deisenbe, Guy1890, Iamcuriousblue, Lighthead, Morbidthoughts, Sephiroth storm, Tim1965, TomCat4680, Vanellaphantom04, Zonafan39, Tutelary, and CAPTAIN RAJU:

Hi members of the project, I believe that project need a update. There is a lot of outdated stuff. Compare the current page with that of ten years ago. [7] Initially I believe the "Structure for porn biographies" section should be deleted. I do not see the need for a specific structure for biography of porn actors, for example {{Infobox adult biography}} do not exist anymore.

The scope of the project focuses heavily on biographies of actors and actresses, who are already treated by other projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography and Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Sex work task force and ignores much of history of pornography, companies and all erotic art.Guilherme Burn (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• One of the things greatly hindering the project is a lack of appropriate sources. I, for example, could write a history of an adult film company based on what I know and have read and the industry people I've talked to. It would all be original research, however. The project is watched by a large number of individuals who try to get articles deleted if not properly sources.

I myself am unsure how to approach the "erotic art" aspect. Are there erotic art pieces which are so notable as to deserve articles? Surely, there are many masterpieces of classical art which qualify as erotic art. Those tend to be already covered by Wikipedia. (Having this project add to their Talk pages is highly controversial, I have found. Many people do not like to think of Michelangelo's David as pornographic.) Again, my sense is that the project faces a lack of appropriate sources identifying notable pieces of erotic art. Maybe I'm completely off-base with these comments, but those are my impressions. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tim1965:I have the same impressions, I totally agree with you and I add the emergence of the "tube" sites that have emptied pornography of notoriety. I believe the line that separates erotic and pornographic is very tenuous, several ancient arts can be interpreted as pornography and some hardcore movies can be interpreted as art, so the project loses a lot when dealing only with pornography (could be renamed or created a Task Force, I do not know).Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it would be helpful to update a number of parameters, I think that the infobox should have not been removed for example, and also Tim1965 is absolutely right, pages worked on in the are of Pornography are continuously nominated for deletion regardless of how meticulous and cited the work is, please LMK what everyone's thoughts are and how I can help. Art javier (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment - What categories of an adult award are notorious?

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards#What categories of an adult award are notorious?Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

RFC on WP:PORNBIO

Hi, there is an RFC on scrapping the Pornbio notabilty guideline (SNG) taking place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of the Internet Adult Film Database (IAFD) on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion of the reliability of the Internet Adult Film Database (IAFD) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § IAFD.COM. — Newslinger talk 22:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Overwatch and pornography

There is a dispute about the non-free files used on the page. The dispute is over whether one of the files needs to be the complete video or if a single frame from this video sufficiently illustrates the given points. There is also a smaller point about whether or not both non-free images are needed and/or justified. The discussion currently involves two editors, myself and the file's uploader, so more input is needed. The discussion is at Talk:Overwatch and pornography#Animated video again. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Rule 34 image

There is a discussion at Talk:Rule 34 (Internet meme) about what image, if any, should be inlcuded on the page. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

"Adult performer"

@Sangdeboeuf: Hi there, re: this change, while I agree with your point that "porn star" is slang, "adult performer" is vague, since it could be used to describe any adult in the performing arts, but it is also euphemistic speech, which I think we should avoid. "Porn actor" or to a lesser degree "porn performer" seem to be better options to me. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair point. It seems a difficult balance to strike between clarity and sufficient formality, but I would generally avoid using the abbreviated and slangy "porn" in Wikipedia's voice (Porn Studies notwithstanding). I've boldly changed the one instance of "adult performers" to "performers of pornography" along with other more formal tone changes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: I don't see what's slangy about the word "porn". It's in widespread use pretty much everywhere, including mainstream subjects and I think it's a bit more accessible in the context of "porn actor" than "pornography actor". Also I think "performers of pornography" is clunky and needlessly wordy if two words will suffice. Going by Google News results "porn actor" is more popular than porn perfomer. Although now that I look at it, "porn star" seems the overall preferred choice in that context. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, well, what's popular on the Internet is not necessarily suitable for encyclopedic writing. ROFL LMAO OMG WTF TLDR are also popular terms online. Feel free to adjust the wording if it bothers you. But please note that on Wikipedia, "pornographic actor" returns three times as many search results as "porn actor". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC) (edited 15:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC))

@Sangdeboeuf: A slightly disingenuous response since I linked to Google News searches rather than LOLcat discussion forums. If mainstream professionals like the New York Times have no qualms with using the word porn, then we probably shouldn't either. I certainly don't care enough about this to fight you on it, so I'll leave the status quo until someone else has an opinion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll just note here that the name of this project is Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography, not Wikipedia:WikiProject Porn. However, "adult performer" has now been changed to simply "performer", which hopefully avoids the issue altogether. (While that term can also be vague, the meaning should be clear in context.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC Stoya

A notice that there is a Request for Comment at Talk:Stoya about including her name in her article when there is a dispute to what it actually is. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Shock Site Page

Hello! I have been revising the Shock Site page as previously there was very little information about it. I integrated the old information into the sections I added about History, Legality, Morality and Media when I first revised the page. Would anyone be willing/able to look at the site and make recommendations of any more changes to make? Additionally, another user asked to add back the original information at the end under "Examples", which means the information is now duplicated. I am considering removing it from the other sections, but that means the Media section will likely have to be removed as there will be little information and leaving BestGore out of the History section feels like missing part of the story (so to speak). Do you have any advice on what I should do? -Bcstanley1 (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Renaming discussion for "List of male performers in gay porn films" article

I have suggested that the article List of male performers in gay porn films be changed to List of male performers in gay pornographic films. Porn is slang and Wikipedia generally uses the term "pornography" for categories and articles, as it does with the main gay pornography article. Adding notice here to alert editors. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

AfC draft submitted of interest to this project

FYI - Draft:Muslim porn stars has been submitted to Articles for Creation, in case someone wants to take a gander. Missvain (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

The deprecated WP:PORNBIO SNG is under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Documenting history of WP:PORNBIO deprecation in this policy. Editors have disputed porn performers being evaluated per WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Gene93k. I've shared my thoughts. Missvain (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Pornhub Insights

On WP:RS/N#pornhub.com/insights an editor suggested to propose the Pornhub Insights for the #Industry/trade sources on your project page.
Unrelated, doing this I saw that you list RogReviews.com under self-published sources, and therefore unsuited for BLPs. Based on Roger T. Pipe he is a notable film critic, and IMO referencing his site for this purpose (film critic) does not automatically violate WP:BLP. –84.46.52.214 (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:SELFPUB. Rog is a notable film critic, but his site can only be used to reference his opinions and criticism of movies; not to establish facts about other people. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

IOW, we agree on Rog, Stoya, and the related BLP policies. –84.46.52.214 (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

For your archives, this WT:WHITELIST issue is now archived. –84.46.53.42 (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

is this deletion material ?

Hallo, I tried to improve this bio but I can't find much on internet. He definitely was a pretty known gay porn actor but I can't find anything to source this and at the moment there is only one source, plus is he notable and why (WP:ENT, WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO) ? please check it out: Zak Spears --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Awards table layout

Hi, On all pornography actors/actress's articles the award table layout is like this whereas on non-porno ones they're like this,

On all non-porno actors'actresses the result is always before the Refs. whereas on all porno ones they're next to the year,
So my question is is there any consensus for the porno award table layout ?,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done - See below. –Davey2010^Talk 16:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

RFC on pornographic awards table

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is that the adjustments below should be made to all pornographic actors/actresses tables. There is no consensus to implement Koavf's changes however Koavf or anyone else are welcome to do this (or start a separate RFC elsewhere on it), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Hi, On all pornographic actresses/actors awards - Should the table layout be changed so that they look the same as non-pornographic BLP awards tables?
(IE "Ceremony" be renamed to "Award" and the Result column be moved before Refs.) (examples below), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Porn actor award

Year	Ceremony	Result	Award	Work	Ref(s)
2014	AVN Award	Won	Best All-Girl Group Sex Scene (with Gracie Glam and Raven Rockette)	Meow! 3
2014	AVN Award	Nominated	Best Boy/Girl Sex Scene (with Manuel Ferrara)	Cuties 4
2019	Pornhub Award	Won	Blowjob Queen — Top Blowjob Performer	—

Actress/Singer award table

Year	Award	Category	Work	Result	Ref.
2011	Portal Award	Best Young Actor	Game of Thrones	Nominated
2011	Scream Award	Best Ensemble	Game of Thrones	Nominated
2012	SFX Awards	Best Actress	Game of Thrones	Nominated
2012	Portal Award	Best Supporting Actress	Game of Thrones	Won

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

!votes

• Support per nom. There's nothing different about porn-stars. ~ HAL333 15:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Seems safe and sensible. Bonewah (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom- uniformity between actors regardless of genre seems appropriate. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - after looking at them both, the other layout is just confusing Ikjbagl (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Currently, a person using a screen reader would hear the year, award, and then result before continuing on about the category which would not be a logical order. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Mostly support But with the caveats that these tables should have captions, properly use scope="col" and scope="row", and there should not be a column for references; include the reference in the cell that is the respective column or row being cited. Additionally, there is no need to define widths of tables, so do not do this. Additionally, the examples given abuse the <small>...</small> tag and use an emdash where an endash should be--see WP:DASH. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Koavf, Whilst I appreciate everyones opinions - Yours are all unrelated to the RFC - I'm simply gaining consensus to change the layout from one way to another (with the latter being widely used and accepted here),

Widths, Ref cols, dashes etc etc are all unrelated to this RFC as I'm not wanting to change minor things like that, Whilst I really do want to address each and every point I personally see no point given as I said it's all unrelated here, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 20:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion unrelated to the RFC in hand.

Davey2010, Accessibility and adherence to the MOS aren't "minor". If your RfC is "Should we change all [A]s to [B]s?" and there are problems with [B], then I don't think it's worth changing them all over once and instantiating all the problems with [B] over and over again. If you're going to go thru dozens or hundreds of articles to switch them, it's worth making all of these changes while you're at it. As I wrote, I otherwise support the proposal, so you can take that as a !vote of yes if that's narrowly all you're interested in but to whomever actually does the work of converting them (I assume it's you but it may not be), please do these other things simultaneously, so as to reduce the burden of fixing these errors later. It's not accurate to say that "all my opinions are unrelated to the RfC when I said that I support your proposal. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Koavf - Sorry but no, My only edits related to the Award tables will be to do as described above, Anything else will be down to the person who has an issue with it which up until now is only you. Thanks for self-appointing yourself "MOS table fixer". Ref columns should stay (they're only empty because I removed the cites to make things simple) but everything else I'm not bothered about and certainly won't be making any of the edits you wish. –Davey2010Talk 21:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Davey2010, Why are you talking to me like this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Like what ?, You seem to have an issue over something unrelated and then you expect me to fix whatever problem you have....., Not happening. As I said you're now the self-appointed "MOS table fixer" so thanks for that. –Davey2010Talk 21:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Also incase there's any misunderstanding or confusion here - When I say you're the "MOS table fixer" I mean you can fix all of the problems you've mentioned in your !vote.. –Davey2010Talk 21:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Davey2010, Would you say that you're being polite? I just don't understand this hostility. You can not like me or not like my suggestions but if you're saying that you're already going to be editing these tables and you refuse to copy and paste |+Award nominations when you're already in the process of doing it, that just comes across as petty and frankly hostile to blind users. There's no reason to be so rancorous toward me with your language and to be so obstinate with making edits that you know are in direct contravention to the MOS, accessibility guidelines, and consensus. I've asked the same thing of other users so that this work is just included in the workflow of what they are already doing and no one else has been so vituperative. If you are really insistent that you refuse to help blind users with table captions, you could at least offer to collaborate with me (e.g. by sharing a list of articles that you plan on editing) but this response is just an unacceptable way to talk to another person. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Justin, Are you for real ?, I am not making edits that are not described in my rationale above for the umpteenth time, To say I'm being hostile to blind users is a fucking disgrace to this project and I'm doing anything but!, This entire RFC relates nothing to visually impaired people so therefore I'm not making those sorts of edits, Now like I said you're more than welcome to make these edits yourself. Now stop pinging me troll. –Davey2010Talk 22:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Also if you don't like people getting irate with you then maybe it's a good idea you don't demand people to do work that was never offered in the first place, If you have a problem with my replies then you my friend are more than welcome to whinge and whine at ANI. –Davey2010Talk 22:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - makes wikipedia as a whole easier to read. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• support per Koavf. Also, his comments are not unrelated to this RfC. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• usernamekiran - Well they are because I'm not proposing the changes he wants,

Again I'm not making changes I've not proposed above - Koavf or anyone else are free to make those changes however to be blunt they're above my paygrade. Everything outlined in my rationale above are the only things I'm wanting consensus for and will do, Anything outside of that can and will be the responsibility of whoever wants to make those changes but that person will not be me, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 23:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I missed something out: "Ceremony" will be renamed to "Award", and "Award" (in the fourth column) will be renamed to "Category", The latter was somehow missed off but seems stupid and a waste of time doing an RFC purely on renaming one column heading to something else so I'm obviously including the latter in this RFC even tho it was missed off. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

RFC on Zak Smith

There is a current RFC on Zak Smith that the project may be interested in weighing in. [8] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Jazmin Chaudhry

I just recreated an article twice deleted before. I hope I am within Wikipedia guidelines with the article. I also would very glad if you guys could take a look at the article, advice, and lend a hand if possible. Thank you. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: I have not evaluated the Bengali-language sources, so they might establish notability. As for the English-language sources however, nearly all of them are there to pump up the AVN Award as "The Oscars of Porn," thus trying to make a scene-related award win a significant accomplishment. Winning such an "Oscar of Porn" didn't establish notability in the 2011 AfD debate and they still don't, since the references don't even mention Jasmin/Jazmin. The award win did not satisfy WP:PORNBIO in 2011, and it counts for even less now that PORNBIO has been taken down. Finally, celebrity net worth sites are generally considered unreliable, and top porn star listicles are often considered to be writer's opinion. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking that with an AVN Award, a stint with Spiegler Girls, South Asia wide popularity and a claim of first, along with non-trivial coverage in the mainstream by fair sources this holds up well enough against the general notability criteria. Let's see. May be I was wrong.

The other problem is lack of credible sources, not too many are available to count for substantial coverage. Even lukeisback is spam filtered out, Dirty Bob is unavailable and gramponante has deprecated a large part of its archives. Any mainstream coverage should be good for an adult actor. I wish I could make that clear to my fellow editors. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Aditya Kabir: The sources you mention above are unreliable. Luke Ford was blacklisted as being an especially unreliable reference for facts. Also please note that the Roger T. Pipe references you just added are self-published, not accepted as reliable. Very few porn-related sources meet the WP:RS standard. Association with a notable act or production only confers notability if independent reliable sources directly acknowledge the performer's role a non-trivial manner. Reliable sources need to show direct and non-trival coverage about Jazmin herself. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I know. I was not banking on them. They help to write the article, but notability is covered by mainstream sources, like newspapers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I stumbled across the article because of it's use of unreliable sources. Are there good articles that this one can be modeled after, because this doesn't look like an encyclopedia article.

I'm assuming notability is met somehow, but the article needs a rewrite if BLP-quality sources are available. Otherwise STUB it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Most reliable sources about her will probably be from Bengladesh, and we are not experts in assessing the reliability of sources from there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The article has been hugely rewritten. Can you guys take a look at it again? I would also request you guys to take a look at the article class in the project banners. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any substantial changes that make it less a fan page and more encyclopedic. I'd say it's significantly worse. Did you attempt to find GA articles to follow?

Reintroducing unreliable sources as you did could you get you blocked or banned. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Aditya Kabir: The lead is substantially unchanged. "The Oscars of Porn" mention is a peacock term. The article's prose tries to assert notability through association with notable or critically praised persons and entities without direct coverage of Jazmin herself. Notability is not inherited. Another issue is that porn filmographies are discouraged as they give undue weight to non-notable detail. The article does the filmography twice, first as prose, then in list form. The prose contains significant {{puffery}}. Finally (again) with Roger T. Pipe, the sources added established Pipe a subject matter expert. Even so, he is still self-published and cannot be used as a fact reference for biographies of living people. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay. But, what happened to the porn project? No once from the project is responding. That's sad. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: I have reduced the article to stub. Take a look. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on reliability of TheSword.com interview

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of an interview with Erik Rhodes on TheSword.com. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § The Sword. — Newslinger talk 16:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Beeg

There's a tiny little disambiguation page at Beeg that attracts more pageviews than almost any other I've seen – they're somewhat erratic, but always in the hundreds [9]. I suspect most of this is coming from people looking not for the Dutch village or any of the other obscure topics, but for the porn website beeg.com. Do you think the website could be notable? – Uanfala (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Notability per WP:NWEB comes from non-trivial interest from multiple independent WP:reliable sources. I ran a GNews search and got one article about the site being hacked along with many, many false positives. While ~625 hits/day is high for a dab page, there is very little reliably sourced content about beeg.com that a Wikipedia article can offer. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Alexis Texas for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alexis Texas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Texas (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Right cite (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

New improved article Aroused (film)

I researched and improved the page Aroused (film) - let me know if you want to help out with further research, thank you! Right cite (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:XBIZ Award winners has been nominated for deletion

Category:XBIZ Award winners has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Right cite (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:AVN Award winners has been nominated for deletion

Category:AVN Award winners has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Right cite (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of George Payne (actor) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Payne (actor) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Payne (actor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Right cite (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Are the people notable?

Is Alexis Fawx, Aubrey Kate notable as they are both AVN winners. Also Gianna Michaels and Sara Jay are in the AVN hall of fame , do you think they should have articles? Dwanyewest (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Since 2019, porn awards by themselves are no longer enough to establish notability. Even when PORNBIO was an active SNG, the first three would not pass. 1. Alexis Fawx (Nightmoves win fails "well-known and significant industry award" criterion). 2. Aubrey Kate (scene-related award wins don't count.) 3. Gianna Michaels (AfD: Working consensus at multiple AfDs was that niche category wins like Unsung Starlet did not satisfy PORNBIO). Sara Jay is salted against re-creation, and the recommended action is go to Deletion Review with evidence from good references. AVN Hall of Fame is not enough by itself to establish notability. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• As for Alexis Fawx, the MILF Performer of the Year AVN win would have been borderline at best when PORNBIO was active. Even then, the consensus at AfD was porn award + low quality sources do not add up to notability. • Gene93k (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:SKYISBLUE -- When screen name is obvious parody or modification of famous name or thing, indicate that?

A lot of names for the subjects of porn articles are obvious parodies or variants of celebrity names or of otherwise well-known names. E.g. "Mary Carey" is derived from Mariah Carey.

I think it would be beneficial to spell out the joke in such cases, both as information in the porn articles and to reduce confusion for people who mis-spell the better known name.

WP:SKYISBLUE seems to overcome the lack of explicit sourcing for such statements, though there are probably references to the general phenomenon of porn names being derived from names of well known people, places and things. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Aroused peer review

I've put the good article on the documentary film Aroused (film) for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Aroused (film)/archive1. Feedback to help improve its quality further would be appreciated, thank you, Right cite (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Embarrassed naked female

There is a discussion happening about the Embarrassed naked female and Embarrassed nude female redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 26#Embarrassed naked female. One suggestion is to write an article about the topic. Comments from those who are experienced at finding useful sources among all the hits for porn sites would be especially welcome. Please contribute there to keep discussion in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Comparison of camming sites

There currently isn't any Comparison of camming sites article. Would it be possible to have someone take on creation of that article ?

In particular, I think it's useful to have an article focusing on benefits of blockchain technology on those sites (anonimity, privacy, security) mainly from the cam artists perspective towards the customer (but obviously not towards the company, as they need all data of their artists).

Besides that, it is interesting to also look at major policy differences between the sites (ie policy decisions affecting anonimity, ie are artists allowed to wear a veil ?) and the amount of revenue (in %) taken by those camming companies (and list them) in the table. On Webcam_model#Hosting_websites it is mentioned that blockchain tech allows the artists to have less expenses and thus have a lower % taken by those companies. However, although theoretically possible I doubt whether in real life that is also really the case.

Also list the size of the company (userbase), whether tipping is allowed and how (via intimate tokens ?, ...), target audience/types of people (like gay, lesbian, asian, ...), ...

These can be sources:

• https://www.laweekly.com/the-best-adult-cam-sites-of-2020-live-sex-webcams-with-stunning-camgirls/
• topadultwebcamsites dot com

There are already some major camming sites mentioned (and pages have been made for them) on the List_of_chat_websites so that can be easily copied over to the new article and a simple shortlist can quickly be made. After that, also integrate the Live Stars and SpankChain sites (and perhaps make a page on them) --Genetics4good (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Pornographic Films

It has come to my attention that a large proportion of wikipedia articles on pornographic films especially those in the category "american pornographic films" do not meet Wikipedia's notability requirement for films. As such I am going to begin to PROD These articles.

Thanks Goldenbeef (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:James Deen § Allegations

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:James Deen § Allegations. — Bilorv (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

English Wikipedia criteria too strict?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​I think we should look into whether the English language Wikipedia's criteria for BLPs in regards to people in the industry are too strict in so far as deleting pages. In the English-speaking world pornography is largely quite a taboo topic so it’s expected that pornographic actors generally get little coverage in reliable mainstream publications. However, I don't think this justifies their pages being deleted. We must look at the person in the context of the industry. The industry is a major one and I think if there is good coverage of the person from large and reliable pornographic publications like AVN, but little to none in mainstream publications, that shouldn't necessarily mean their page is deleted. I have noticed there are many major performers in the industry that have multiple Wikipedia pages in a variety of languages but many miss out on English pages. Take ES:Madison Ivy or ES:Sophie Dee for example who have a page on 12 and 17 different Wikipedia language pages respectively but are deemed not notable enough/not meeting criteria on the English language Wikipedia. Why have all these languages deemed the person notable, yet the English Wikipedia seems to stand as an outlier denying them a page? The industry is a legitimate profession and I think that its taboo in English speaking languages is causing bias in regards to people asking too much of performers in terms of sources and criteria for them to have a page on the English language Wikipedia. I think we should look into the rules of other language Wikipedia's and see how they differ and what we can learn from them. Editor’s feedback would be much appreciated, especially those that edit other language Wikipedia pages. If you think this discussion should take place elsewhere, please direct me to the right place to post this message for the most feedback possible from other editors. Thanks. Helper201 (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I think those pages were probably copied from English Wikipedia when WP:PORNBIO was a separate notability guideline. This was discussed extensively at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). While I personally think mainstream media's aversion to frank discussion of sex and pornography is dumb (and curiously not seen toward the leaders of corporations selling weapons of war or polluting the biosphere), Wikipedia is unfortunately not the place to right such wrongs. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a systemic bias against coverage of pornography in reliable media, but even so I believe Wikipedia has an additional systemic bias against proper coverage of this area. Relevant articles I've created recently include Bellesa, Adult Performer Advocacy Committee, Adult Performance Artists Guild and Hot Girls Wanted: Turned On. All are pretty uncontroversially notable, and in at least two cases I would have expected to find articles already were this a different topic area. During the research process, I've noted a lot of very lacking higher-level articles on more basic concepts and areas in pornography. As such, without even expanding our criteria (which is not the same as "righting great wrongs"—for instance, we have exceptional notability conditions for academics), we can make great progress. I notice you've hidden pinged quite a lot of people, so to avoid appearance of canvassing you should state how you selected them. — Bilorv (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies so far Sangdeboeuf and Bilorv. I agree with your view regarding the bias Bilorv and thank you for creating those pages. Yes, I should’ve stated how I selected the editors I pinged Bilorv, apologies, my mistake. I pinged all the participants listed on the project page and the most recent people to post here on this talk page. I have also placed this discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) if either of you or anyone else would like to also take part there it would be much appreciated. Helper201 (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Since you raised this issue at the main talk page for notability of people, let's consolidate discussions there.[10] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. I was beyond happy when we started using general notability guidelines. So much cruft and junk and sorry, not every AVN winner should get a Wikipedia article and I won't be convinced otherwise. I don't always use mainstream media (i.e. we know the New York Times is not going to be the best place for determining notability for porn) for my sourcing - there is a lot of sourcing out there if you know how to look and you can find good stuff that is reliable, secondary and quality. Especially if you're writing about Golden Age through the early 1990s, which is my interest area. Also these days you do see a lot of crossover - LGBTQI porn being covered in mainstream and alternative (but reliable, secondary and quality sourcing) publications, for example. Again, I'm so so so so happy we're using general notability guidelines. I would be open minded to see a list of sourcing that is considered reliable secondary sourcing for pornography. But, I am not going back to the "they won an AVN award" territory. Missvain (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ramón Nomar

Could someone take a look at the page for Ramón Nomar? There are numerous footnotes that use cites to archive.is instead of the actual web cites. Kaltenmeyer (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

"Porn Project" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Porn Project and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 10#Porn Project until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Where can I find reliable sources to prove the notability of Japanese pornstars?

The Japanese Wikipedia have many JAV stars articles, but also many of them don't have any sources when you look in the articles. I try searching for reliable sources to prove the notability before translating them to other Wikipedia sites, but I failed. I checked the source chapter here but most are for Western porn, not for JAV. The only one for JAV is AV-open.jp but the website is down. --dqwyy (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you can look at FANZA News or buy the digital copy of Monthly FANZA and other magazines, but I am not sure if they fit the WP:RS standard since many of the Japanese socures do not list the names of staff or they just using nicknames, even in widely respected sources. I involved in a similar discussion before (for reference).--So47009 (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I think they are reliable sources but not Independent of the subject, so maybe they can't prove the notability. Thank you anyway. --dqwyy (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Trampling

Opinions are welcome at Talk:Trampling (sexual practice)#Separate article or not?. – Uanfala (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Knave and Fiesta magazines: defunct?

Have the venerable British softcore porn magazines Knave and Fiesta ceased publishing? I can't find any sign of recent publication of either, nor any mention of it in WP:RS. Presumably the Audit Bureau of Circulation ( https://www.abc.org.uk/ ) or similar will have some record of this?

An issue of Fiesta was published in 2020, according to their Twitter account, but I can't see anything after that. The magazine's website stopped working some time after that. This magazine collector's site suggests the final issue was Volume 54, number 4, in 2020.

Knave seems to have been publishing as late as 2015, and their website shut down around the same time. Their twitter account last posted in 2014. The same magazine collector's site seems to suggest the last issue was Volume 47, number 4, in July 2015.

Any thoughts? — The Anome (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Private magazine

Does Private magazine have an ISSN or OCLC number? It would seem odd that such a widely-published magazine would not have these identifiers assigned, regardless of genre. — The Anome (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

ISSN and OCLC are useful for library availability. Private and the like were under the counter/adult bookstore fare, if not underground. An ISSN search brings up 2 unrelated publications. Even now, registration is voluntary and would not be particularly useful. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The magazine is definitely sold overtly now, barcodes and all. Are EAN codes relevant for this sort of thing? Or are they insufficiently accurate identifiers to be useful for things like Wikidata? — The Anome (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Update: The Private (Stockholm) ISSN entry[11] *might* be this magazine. ISSN does not give much detail for verification. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I think you are absolutely right: compare https://libris.kb.se/bib/3679428 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q79018524 . I'm going to merge the Wikidata items to reflect this. — The Anome (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

ISSN 0345-9101 on Worldcat comes back as Milcap Media Group Milcap Publishing Group (1965-present). Private/Pirate magazine beyond a reasonable doubt.[12] • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Rustler and Raider magazines

I've nearly completed a series of articles on British top-shelf pornography. The Gold Star Publications article needs some more filling in, and articles to be created on Raider (magazine) and Rustler (magazine)s, and I think that finishes it. See Template:British pornography for an overview of the overall subject. Any help would be welcomed. — The Anome (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonella Alonso

I have nominated Antonella Alonso for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonella Alonso. Please see the discussion there. BD2412 T 16:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Update

Two updates are long overdue:

1.The section "Requests" names Helen Baldwin, Rachel Garley, Jasmine Jae, Holly Hendrix, Sara Luvv, Vaniity, Vicki Richter, Eva Lin, Aubrey Kate and Chanel Santini.

If somebody dares to create an article on them, keep stopper at hand. Probably your article would break the record for the most speedy deletion.

2. The section "Pornographic film awards" still says that a "page containing the winners and nominees of some notable adult industry awards" is "particularly useful for determining whether a performer meets the award-related notability criteria within WP:PORNBIO."

The update version should say: No matter what awards, no performer would meet the notability criteria within WP:PORNBIO."--Maxaxa (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Islamic sexual jurisprudence, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Image problem with File:MPAA_X_RATING.svg

Someone by the name of Locke Cole has vandalized the X_rating page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_rating

replacing the true MPAA X symbol with his own "custom vector" file, simply because he wants to be famous and/or thinks it looks better. Please ban this user and replace it with the old and correct file "X_MPAA.png", which can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20221011201258/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_rating#/media/File:X_MPAA.png

The correctness of this file can be verified by the very links Mr. Cole has cited: https://fffmovieposters.com/wp-content/uploads/76993.jpg http://www.impawards.com/1987/posters/devil_in_the_flesh_xxlg.jpg

You can see that the true MPAA X symbol has much wider, flatter serifs, which Mr. Cole has conveniently removed to fit his own preferences. Such users are a pox on Wikipedia and must be eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faketakedump (talk • contribs) 05:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Did the earth run out of talent?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of pornographic performers by decade#Did the earth run out of talent?.Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Adriana Chechik

I have restored the previously deleted article on Adriana Chechik to Draft:Adriana Chechik pursuant to the recent news of Chechik's injury at TwitchCon, which I think may suffice to move the subject over the notability threshold. Please feel free to improve further. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Update: I have been pecking away at this for the past month, and I now believe it is suitable for restoration to mainspace, absent any objections. I will probably submit this weekend. BD2412 T 05:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Abella Danger

Following the discussion at Draft talk:Reya Sunshine, I have restored the deleted article on AVN co-host Abella to draft at Draft:Abella Danger. The article was deleted in December 2020; a search suggests numerous potential sources arising after that date. BD2412 T 20:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Given the 2023 AVN Awards tie-in this draft has with Draft: Reya Sunshine, feel free to an offer an update on how things are progressing with this draft! I've also re-done the notability section on Draft talk:Reya Sunshine using WP:THREE as guidance, and if it looks useful, it might benefit this draft as well. I'm at the point where I'm considering moving it to the main space myself and rolling the dice with any subsequent AfD action, but I'd also appreciate any feedback that anyone here has - thanks! Ajax0714 (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Carmen Luvana

I have restored this previously deleted subject to draft due to her subsequent starring role in the 2022 Puerto Rican mainstream film, Los Foodtruckeros. If additional coverage of that film develops, or further roles along those lines develop, then the article likely may be restored to mainspace. BD2412 T 03:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I have moved it to mainspace. I'm certain that she meets GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Reya Sunshine

I just drafted an article on Reya Sunshine after her selection to host the AVN Awards in 2023 to to Draft: Reya Sunshine. I submitted it for approval today, which THEN led me to discover this page, so any feedback or suggestions for improvement would be welcome! One of the main things I was trying to draw out in terms of notability was how she has almost exclusively self-produced her content throughout her career, and yet has still managed to reach a degree of name recognition comparable to some of the biggest actors as the major porn studios. Thanks again!! T Ajax0714 (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not seeing this as passing WP:PORNBIO. Just my opinion, but the standards are pretty strict in terms of requiring sources from outside the industry. BD2412 T 01:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I've made substantial edits to this draft, and I'm planning on resubmitting this to AfC in another week or so. On the talk page for Draft: Reya Sunshine, there's a notability discussion centered on WP:THREE, so if anyone would like to offer comments on that, please feel free! Ajax0714 (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank for the feedback- I'll see what I can do!! Ajax0714 (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

BD2412 T called it, and my initial draft at Draft: Reya Sunshine was declined for publication. I've made some subsequent edits since then, and if anyone has any others, feel free to make them! My current plan is to see if any mainstream press coverage results after the AVN Awards Show, and if it's sufficient, to re-submit - thanks again! Ajax0714 (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I have moved it to mainspace bypassing the AFC process. Thanks for your contribution. Thilsebatti (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the assist, thanks! Ajax0714 (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

John Jesnor Lindsay

The article on John Jesnor Lindsay is in need of a rewrite, sourcing, and possibly reclasified as a stub. I found the original to contain lots of opinion and review rather than objective biography. Ktkvtsh (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

What about this person

Is Brittney Kade notable enough for a wikipedia article? Meet the teenage boy bullied out of school whose confidence has soared since becoming a glamorous woman - World News - Mirror Online , Transgender teen Brandon Morrison, bullied at school now hopes to become a model | Metro News , 'I've won awards for being an adult star – but my family have disowned me' - Daily Star Dwanyewest (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest: The WP:DAILYMIRROR is flagged at WP:RSPS, with no consensus whether it is as unreliable as the WP:DAILYMAIL. The WP:DAILYSTAR and The Metro are deprecated as generally unreliable and comparable to the Daily Mail. The best hope is to find non-trivial coverage in more reputable media to satisfy WP:BASIC. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated List of Penthouse Pets for deletion.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Penthouse Pets. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Update: Now that the list has been deleted, a large number of redlinks have been created from names of individuals who were previously on the list:

*Aidra Fox
*Aimee Sweet
*Alexis Ford
*Breanne Benson
*Celeste Star
*Chris De May
*Dahlia Gray/Dahlia Grey
*Dina Juwel
*Divina Celeste
*Emily Addison
*Erica Rose Campbell/Erica Campbell (model)
*Evelyn Treacher
*Gina La Marca/Gina LaMarca
*Giselle Palmer
*Hanna Harper
*Hanna Hilton/Hannah Hilton
*Hannah Harper
*Jami Dion
*Jamie Lynn (porn star)
*Jana Cova/Yana Cova/Jana Kova
*Jenna Sativa
*Jennifer Jurse
*Jesse Capelli
*Juliet Cariaga
*Katherine Mannering
*Lexi Belle
*Lexus Locklear
*Lexxi Tyler
*Maria Menendez
*Mariwin Roberts
*Martina Warren
*Michelle Ramos
*Paula Ann Wood
*Phoenix Marie
*Presley Hart
*Renee Diaz
*Renee Perez
*Riley Nixon
*Ryan Keely
*Tamara Santerra
*Taylor Vixen
*Teagan Presley
*Teanna Kai/Teanara Kai
*Victoria Lynn Johnson
*Whitney Westgate

Most of these were previously articles that were deleted many years ago, and then redirected. I bring these here in case there are any names on the list that can presently sustain an article. BD2412 T 01:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)