Talk:Pornhub

URL

27/05/2023 14:30 Why is the sites url listed as pornhub.org? Is it not pornhub.com? 2A01:C23:C0E2:2200:61B4:2FA2:552C:F7D6 (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It is, but the .com website is blacklisted on Wikipedia. -- AxG / ✉  15:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I was about to type the same thing. 63.131.219.7 (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@2A01:C23:C0E2:2200:61B4:2FA2:552C:F7D6 2404:3100:1C27:1B4C:36F:FD91:5E7C:1EF (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus due to minimal participation since 15 September 2023. But I have proceed with merge and redirect by change of mind after noticing the "Popular Culture" section in Pornhub is short. Following "Be Bold", other oppose participants can revert my edit and restart the discussion. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Proposed merge: Pornhub Community intro into Pornhub.

The references are low-quality sources with little in-depth information about the jingle, such as its history of composition or analysis beyond its length and instrumentation. It's hard to see what such information could exist. Even among those publications that are sometimes reliable, the articles here are very poor. For instance, several embed TikTok videos as their "sources"; others take a viral video at face value for the claim that a student was "expelled" or use an anonymous tweet to contest this claim. The Vice coverage is passing.

This could at best be a paragraph (and at worst a sentence) in the article Pornhub. — Bilorv (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge as a sentence or two in the main article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I support merge. Pornhub Community intro is a part of Pornhub. So, this merge should happen as soon as possible. Thank you. 114.130.156.29 (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  Comment. List of Friends episodes is part of Friends. So what is your point? बिनोद थारू (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. "The reference are low quality sources."

• NZ Herald is listed in RSP as generally reliable with consensus, covering the talent show stunt involving the Pornhub jingle.
• The source covering the jingle in detail, Mel Magazine, explicitly states that they have editorial oversight (https://melmagazine.com/about).
• Finally, the insider source which covers the TikTok trend is generally reliable in RSP (see Insider (culture)).

All of the topics of this article: the jingle's background, the talent show stunt and the TikTok trend, are covered by RS. It would be absurd to move the consensus goalposts just for this discussion.

Finally, what nom. is describing of sources embedding TikTok videos is literally the definition of secondary sources. They use TikTok (a primary source) and their own editorial judgement to write a magazine article (a secondary source). Sources with embedded TikToks or Tweets ubiquitous even on living subject articles (YouTubers), who have stricter sourcing standards. The LP policy exists so that you can't include everything from a source. Multiple sources consensus is needed to include something like the guy being expelled. It isn't even currently on Pornhub Community intro, so this is a non-issue.

बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep separate, per above comment. Also, it is better formatted on a separate page. People searching for "Pornhub music" or "Pornhub jingle" would want to land on its own article, not on a single sentence in the Pornhub page. The Pornhub jingle is clearly a standalone topic from Pornhub. One is a sound, while the other is a website. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"The Pornhub jingle is clearly a standalone topic from Pornhub" - no, the former only exists because of the latter. It doesn't need its own article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"the former only exists because of the latter. It doesn't need its own article"

Golden Arches exists because of McDonalds and countless other similar example. Please point to a policy that says "A exists because of B, so A does not need an article". In fact, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging says to not merge if:

• 3. The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short.

There is no overlapping source between Pornhub and Pornhub Community intro so both count as discrete subjects. There is multiple RS in Pornhub Community intro, so it meets notability guideline. बिनोद थारू (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge. Not sufficiently notable on its own for a standalone article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support merge. Not sufficiently notable. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  • In late reply to the two above: disagree since 3+ RSP sources make it presumed notable.

  Bizarre concerns about WP:RSP sources which would requires discussion in reliable sources board first of course since it would violate multiple yearly rounds of RFCs consensus. So overall no real argument against presumed notability. The rest is just going in circles about how Pornhub song is related to Pornhub therefore merge. (the same can be said about all related topics which have separate articles). बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. The sourcing clearly shows that this qualifies for WP:GNG in its own right, and given that the length of the content here already exceeds what would be reasonable to include in the main article, I don't see a case for WP:NOPAGE either. I'm not really sure what thr motivation for proposing this merge is, the page doesn't seem to be doing any harm and has useful encyclopedic content.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  Which sources do you have in mind, Amakuru? — Bilorv (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support trimmed merge per proposal.  // Timothy :: talk  04:52, 28 November 2023 (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.

new owner

Meet Pornhub's new owner: Ethical Capital Partners 2A02:8109:1040:29C0:55B1:5FAC:288E:98C (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Link

Why does the link labeled "official website" link to the terms of service and not the main page? --2001:871:22B:8159:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The internal blacklist covers many Pornhub-related links for obvious reasons. — Bilorv (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2024

112.209.189.225 (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

User:112.209.189.225:  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. penguinencounter2@enwiki:~/talk/contrib$ 21:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)