Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 5

Notability of pornographic film/video

I see a section on the notability guidelines of actors, but what's the guidelines on notability of films/videos? I thought it was something like award nominations. Right?-- AvatarMN (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Notability (films), which would also apply to pornographic films. Basically, the film would either need to pass the general notability guideline or have won a "major award". Epbr123 (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

AVN Europe

Does anyone know the status of http://www.avneurope.com/ ? It appears to be off-line and I was wondering if the website was gone forever and so should be removed from Useful links. Ash (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• It's best to leave it there in case it comes back online or becomes available on Wayback Machine. Epbr123 (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems odd to me that you would argue to keep an non-useful link that does not work in "useful links" and at the same time argue that a useful link (gayporntimes.com) that is obviously useful for non-personal information should not be in "useful links". Is there problem including gay pornography useful links on WP:PORN? At the moment I see a lengthy list of which precisely none are exclusively about gay porn. Let me know as I would prefer to remove myself as a member of this project if I have misunderstood its intent. Ash (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Gay Porn Times as a useful link

I note that user:Epbr123 has been quick to purge gayporntimes.com from Useful links (diff). Does anyone have real objections to this site being included on the list here? See:

1. JC Adams for information about the journalist that runs the site
2. search XBIZ.com to see how the site is syndicated in practice
3. Check http://www.gayporntimes.com/hardnews/2008/08/06/gaytoday-revived-by-thesword/ for information on the site being syndicated by XBIZ

Thanks Ash (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper) states "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". Adams' content on XBiz would be reliable, but not his stuff on Gay Porn Times. Epbr123 (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, that may be the case but we also have the main SPS guidance "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." There are many examples where this is the case, for example BBC journalist blog articles are widely cited and there are a number of leading scientist blogs that I have previously debated (I was originally against) that are widely cited. In this case JC Adams is widely cited (for example due his publication of the Adams Gay Video Directory) and recognized in the field of the adult entertainment industry and so fits the description of established expert, probably the most widely know commentator on gay pornographic film, associated businesses and the people involved. If you continue to object (as I suspect you will), then it may be best to go to RSN and hope for some independent views rather than just opinions from the usual suspects...It may be the case that the source is useable for industry news (such as results from award shows, corporate changes or film reviews) but not gossip about actors' personal lives. To put this in context we are discussing including this as a useful link on the porn project page, not justifying the creation of a BLP based on this source. Obviously it is a "useful link" so I feel that deleting it on sight was heavy handed and the wrong action to take here, you could have easily added a caveat for usage. Ash (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Where's the editorial policy and what were the results of the RSN? - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No RSN has been raised. The main policy is WP:SPS. I note that in your recent revert you removed me as a member of this project, was that a mistake? Ash (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was unintentional. I included it in second revert which E has reverted. E has the burden of proof that consensus has been achieved for every substantial revision - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best if a discussion was started at RSN and a decision is based on the results. I would also prefer if project members refrain from comment to allow neutral parties have a say. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering what happened before, it may be an idea to ask contributors to declare an interest if they have previously contributed rather than trying to stop them from adding comments. Realistically it may be more useful and interesting to have a longer process of a RfC in this area (if suitable wording could be devised) as clarifications or explanations from interested editors may be the best way to build consensus here. RSN is okay for a quick answer on a possible source, but for complex questions rarely gives a definitive outcome. Ash (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

When WP:SPS can be used in BLPs

Epbr123 (talk · contribs)'s most recent changes to this page (diff) are not strictly factual. Though self published sources are not normally used to support facts about the subject of a biographical article, suitable sources (as per WP:SPS) can be used for any information a person publishes about themselves (on their official website/blog, for example) and for subsidiary non-controversial facts not relating to personal information such as gayporntimes.com reporting that an actor has been nominated for an award or has been signed up by a production studio. The current guidance added by Epbr123 is one-sided and unhelpful, apparently to support their hard-line views on BLPs which are not strictly supported by consensus. Ash (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder when SPSs can be used according to WP:V which is policy established by site-wide consensus:

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." 

Further, "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". Now as for gayporntimes.com, check with the RS noticeboard to see what the effect of syndication by XBIZ does. Does it make a republication which then makes the information not self-published and therefore reliable? If that is the case, citations should point to the XBIZ syndication. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say above. This does not mean that gayporntimes.com could never be used as a source in BLPs, just that it probably does not meet the requirements for personal information about a living actor. As already suggested it seems eminently suitable as a source for news reports about industry awards, even in BLPs. Ash (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the links you provided in the previous section, I view that information that XBIZ republishes from gayporntimes through syndication as reliable. However, items that are not republished through XBIZ fall under SPS and I don't agree with the non-"personal information" exception you are trying carve out for third-party self-published sources. Even for news about an industry award nomination, stating that some person is nominated for an award is still a claim about that person. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, you may be confused as I note you have chosen to quote WP:SELFPUB rather than WP:SPS. To clarify for those not aware of the difference; in the case of gayporntimes.com, SELFPUB would apply to an article about JC Adams or his site, whilst SPS would apply where this source was used in an about a gay porn actor. I believe that your reading of SPS may not be what the original wording of "about living persons" intended. A list of awards given out at an industry event is not information "about living persons". Such information, even when from a SPS, is not specifically excluded from BLPs as it is, in fact, not the sort of information about the person that the guidance applies to. If you feel strongly that my interpretation is flawed then this is a debate about interpetation of those three words "about living persons", perhaps a RfC would be useful here if you still disagree with my rationale? Ash (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Pornography in crisis

I have reverted all recent substantial changes to the sources list on the Project page. All potentially contentious changes to this page need to be done by group consensus. The current war on List of male performers in gay porn films and has spilled out onto ANIs, DRV, RSN, talk pages, and now the Project page shows a deep divide in the project. I feel drained by the constant bickering and propose that guidelines be put forth for behavior during group participation. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Rather than indiscriminately reverting edits like you did here, please only remove content you disagree with, and give a policy-based reason why you disagree with it. Epbr123 (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

First proposed guideline: Project page editing rules via an adaption of;

This template should be placed at the top of the project page and is a common sense guideline we all should following. -Stillwaterising (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say no. The {{Wikipedia subcat guideline}} is designed for guidelines rather than projects. If you check the documentation for the template as well as where the template is used, this does not appear to include any project main pages. You may want to consider some sort of notice on this talk page. Ash (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Existing template is {{project|WP:PORN|WP:PORNO|WP:XXX|WP:PORNPROJECT|WP:P*|WP:WPPORN|WP:PORNSTARS|WP:Porn}} My attempt to adapt this template by adding a custom statement has failed. It seems that this template could be modified to accommodate this, but for now we can put the statement Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. in bold at the top of the page. - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've adapted the current ombox for to be substituted for project. I didn't code the shortcut or portal part properly, perhaps somebody can help with it: - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You can make a separate guideline page and tag it subcat guideline.174.3.110.108 (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of rogreviews.com

The reliability of this source was discussed one time on RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_22#Reliable sources for porn star articles) and although only one opinion was entered it did indicate that this was a reliable source. -Stillwaterising (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, the person did not determine that rogreviews.com is a reliable source. I have known Rog over the years and I consider him an expert in what he reviews. However, the fact remains he is self-published and therefore SPS applies. As for his interviews, they are often cited and people have given leeway over this self-publishing because the subject is an active participant in the interview (not just a third party), and Rog simply publishes the transcript of the original audio interview. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Depends on use - rogreviews.com appears to be a self published source so those guidelines apply rather than just WP:RS. As with gayporntimes.com, the reports about industry events such as this awards page would seem acceptable in any article. More controversially perhaps, are the interviews such as listed here, these are primary sources if there is no reason to doubt that the words of the interviewees are faithfully reported (the audio recordings seem definitive to me) and so information from these interviews would fall under SELFPUB and are suitable for BLPs as though the artists do not own the medium, they are ones choosing to have their words published. The site will fail WP:RS and WP:SPS where second-party gossip about the artists is reported, it may be useful to find a way of making this caveat clear if listing it as a potential source of information. (after ec) I seem to basically be in agreement with Morbidthoughts here, such sources are not automatically banned from BLPs, it will depend on the nature of the content. Ash (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So it seems that the Rog Reviews Critic's Choice Nominations and Awards can be mentioned but not used to establish notability and it is a reliable source of quotations because source audio is provided? - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything that can be said about the general reliability of the site? If the articles are picked up by mainstream publications (as with gayporntimes) that gives it some general credibility. With some such credibility, I would say that all interviews were potentially usable under the SELFPUB guidance and not just those with source audio. A small caveat about the awards mentioned, I have no opinion either way on whether the awards listed would be considered "widely recognized" as would be needed to support a BLP notability rationale. Ash (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Playboy Playmates per RFC

Since the RFC decided that being a Playmate isn't notable, I've started a list of Playmates of 2010. Please let me know what you think, make corrections and such. I'd like to use this as a template for all other years. Dismas|^(talk) 22:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, since the deletionists have started on their slash and burn campaign, I'm just going to go ahead with this. Any comments are still welcome but we're running out of time till all the articles are gone, so I'm going to concentrate on saving what I can before they go and worry about format later. Dismas|^(talk) 16:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Religious fanatics and prudes aren't necessarily deletionists broadly writ, just pornography deletionists. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Silence = consent". Yes, go ahead with your work, Dismas and good luck on it. I'd help out, but have been burned helping save information from deletion in areas outside my interest, which then gets deleted in a couple months anyway... So I'm sticking on putting together info on my own area of interest... which will, no doubt, eventually get deleted too ;) Dekkappai (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Good job. I don't see a problem with this. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess there is no reason that any article up for deletion cannot be userfied based on a good faith attempt to improve sourcing of notability. If the deletionist campaign has become automatic then an automatic response of userfy requests seems a moderate approach. Ash (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the format, putting them into a table like this would solve some of the MoS issues. Although, putting it into a table is rather time-consuming, so it may be more of something to consider in the long-term. Epbr123 (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the table idea although I agree it might be better as a long term goal. Right now I'm concentrating on saving what I can while I can. And my copy/paste simple layout is the easiest and fastest way I know how. Dismas|^(talk) 13:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

List of deceased porn stars

I'm trying to find a list or category to find who is living or dead but not finding it. Is there a way to search for this or does some kind of list or category need to be created (or is already in place)? - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a list or category on Wikipedia. If you're wondering if so-and-so is dead, try this list from r.a.m.e: [1] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Normally, we don't have categories for "dead <insert profession>". If we did, it would be a simple matter of using WP:CATSCAN. Dismas|^(talk) 13:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some disorganization in the cause of death tags and no easy way to search for something like "pornographic actors" and "dead people" even though this is how it should be organized. Easy enough to do for Living People though. Would anybody object to a list being created of dead actors? - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

Actually CATSCAN can do it. Try this search looking for gay pornstars with a sub-category search on category:20th-century deaths. It produces quite a neat list of 17 dead actors. Of course, this does not give those for whom the year of death is missing, try this search which uses category:dead people more widely and provides 2 4 more matches. There are some more to be found but the sub-cats of Category:21st-century deaths have not been applied consistently. Ash (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 5/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 5/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Current PORNBIO guidelines

Several editors have issue with the current guidelines, specifically criteria 1, on intepretation of "well known" again. The discussion is at the talk page of WP:BIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Okay folks, I have a radical proposal to put forth, and I want to make it here as opposed to at WP:BIO as I think those who are deal with the topic the most should have first crack at feedback. My proposal is this: kill PORNBIO as a separate set of criteria.

Why? Much of PORNBIO originally stated has either been rejected by the larger community (e.g., Playmates & Pets being notable of articles by themselves), or have been adopted by the larger BIO statement (e.g., the language PORNBIO originally had regarding Google hits not being valid is now part of the larger BIO statement).

So what's left for criteria right now?

• #1 "Has won a well-known award such as one of the AVN_Awards." - quite similar to ANYBIO, except ANYBIO says "notable"
• #2 "Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years." - quite similar to ANYBIO, with two small differences: PORNBIO calls for multiple years while ANYBIO makes no such distinction; and PORNBIO says "well-known" whereas ANYBIO says "notable"
• #4 "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" - the spirit of this is no different from WP:BASIC ("A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."
• #3 This is a bit of a grab bag of a list, and is best handled by breaking it apart:
  • "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography" - similar to ENT's "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."
  • "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" - no direct equivalent, but someone who falls into this category probably would also meet ENT's second criteria ("Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.")
  • "is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent" - not part of ENT, but I would argue that this is similar to WP:ARTIST's first criteria ("The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.") in that it's recognition by your fellows of your contributions.

So with a bit of change in our thinking, we can probably remove PORNBIO as a criteria and not see a sudden mass disappearance of articles from Wikipedia.

Thoughts folks? Tabercil (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Except for AfD discussions, I've essentially ignored PORNBIO for years, and done rather well with Japanese erotic films just by looking at a subject as: Do I have enough sourcing to start an article, and/or has the subject been recognized by some official entity (i.e., an official award, or a critic saying so&so or such&such is groundbreaking/major/influential or something like that). So, in my area, I'd have no trouble with your proposal. What troubles me over on the other page is what appears to be an attempt to through out explicit confirmations of "notability"-- i.e., awards-- as a claim of "notability", as I suspect this is an attempt to put the bias of individual Wiki-editors above the judgements experts in the genres. Dekkappai (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favour of applying the GNG solely (especially with sports figures) to determine notability so I would not mind the removal of PORNBIO. The only concern I have is that PORNBIO clarified that the often nominated portion of ANYBIO was meant to be in successive years with respect to porn awards since they are so prolific. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

With regards to Japanese subjects: As I said above, I don't start an article unless I've got something to go with. However others do, and they often start them on subjects which are perfectly "notable", yet whose sourcing is unavailable to us. Japanese media is nowhere near as easily-available online as is English. And when it does come online it is often only for a short time, after which it is removed from archives. And that's not factoring in problems with older subjects. So, strictly enforcing GNG "equally" will increase the biased coverage here unless things like this are taken into account. Dekkappai (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposal in general, but I'm concerned about the last point. Being admitted to a hall of fame is not the same as being "widely cited by their peers or successors". I could barely find sources about Desiree West, one of the first African-American porn stars, but her hall of fame status made her notable. Being widely cited requires multiple RS. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think of hall of fame induction as a major lifetime award. Probably the ultimate award in many industries. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a problem with the GNG which I've brought up many times, but this point is usually ignored or ridiculed. Malik makes the same point: Obviously Desiree West is notable, since she's a hall-of-famer. Yet, since Malik can't locate multiple, significant, secondary, reliable sourcing on her, the article would be deleted if we stick strictly to GNG. GNG, if it's going to be applied to the entire "sum of human knowledge" has to be flexible enough to allow us to cover extremely diverse subjects without biasing to the easy-to-source. (i.e., current, mainstream, Anglosphere subjects.) Real-world awards and recognitions are just one of the more obvious ways to counter the bias that blind faith in the source-based GNG would create. Dekkappai (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if PORNBIO was removed, ANYBIO still remains. Not sure if we'll ever see the day the latter is removed for exclusive reliance on GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't soothe my concerns. This award didn't make Desiree West "notable", she was notable before the award-- I remember seeing her name everywhere at the time, and I've never even followed the US hardcore porn market. The award was given after she'd been retired for a decade, it was just a recognition of that notability. How many such notables-- particularly older performers, niche performers, or those outside the US-- have not been officially recognized in retrospect like this, and are therefore excluded from Wikipedia on editor-created technicalities? Dekkappai (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii Vice and Kascha Papillon

Just deprodded Hawaii Vice - how is a series of eight pix directed by Ron Jeremy starring Kascha Papillon not be included? And we should have one on Kascha too, here's a resource I found to nail her belonging:

"The porno chicks (including Kascha) went to bed early, read books, and were the only ones to have breakfast with me in the morning and were ready to go for work. Porno for them was just a business.
...
Kascha was hot. If you're analyzing porno chicks, a lot of them come from the Midwest. They usually come from a religious background. Kascha had a master's degree in classical piano. She met her boyfriend-husband [Papillon] and she was going to change the porno industry by just sleeping with her husband, even though he didn't share that same philosophy. The first time I interviewed Kascha, we had a ground floor office with street parking. The first time she walked from the car to the front door, you'd hear nothing but cars screeching and coming to a halt. She was drop dead gorgeous. She had a body that was unbelievable. She was Tahitian looking, blonde hair. She was the most down to earth girl you've met. She was friendly. She offered to babysit my kids. She was really normal and most porno girls were like that. She just wanted to be a legit actress."
--Eric Louzel in Luke Ford, The Producers: Profiles in Frustration, 2004, page 211</ref>}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.8.7 (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Performer online scene credits

This is an area not really covered in the articles so I had begun to add a couple of links to the source AWMDB which tracks the performances of performers on adult websites. These ended up getting removed so I'm seeking the opininon of others before I re-add them only for them to be deleted.

As it stands there are virtually no sources for this information. EuroBabeIndex lists websites for Eastern European performers but there is no solid information on the scenes and as far as I know there is only AWMDB that is a fairly up-to-date source for world-wide performers (North & South American, East & Western European, Australian etc). As with sources such as IAFD and EBI this source tends to be missing parts due to the nature of a constant flow of new content, in the case of web-content this is multiplied due to how many sites that release new content each day.

Anyway I thought I'd get a wider perspective onto whether we think this should be included in the external links as a source of info not yet covered. I don't think it should be included in the main article body since it's changing so regularly but as an external link source similar to the links to IAFD, EBI, AFD I think it's information that isn't provided anywhere else so would be useful.

I figured I would include a few links to show what kind of information the site provides using Gianna Michaels as an example...

A list of adult websites the performer appears on http://www.awmdb.com/stars/581/Gianna_Michaels.html

A break down of scenes within a website that the performer appears on, who with and what the scene contains... http://www.awmdb.com/stars/581/38/

It also provides a list of who the performer stars alongside and on which sites but this seems to be served via Ajax so there's no direct link for that one.

It also lists every performer that has performed on a site http://www.awmdb.com/sites/183/Naughty_Bookworms.html

I think this would be a good additional source of info to be included in the external links at the bottom of an article. It provides information that cannot be found on any of the other sources (IAFD, IMDB, EBI etc) and covers a very wide range of performers from across the globe rather than a select few (i.e. EBI with Eastern European performers) so I think it's worth including in some form. It would be good to hear back what peoples thoughts are and whether they know of any additional or better sources for this information as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NathyWashington (talk • contribs) 11:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose to using this site. The site is full of ads that are meant to drive traffic and generate revenue. Given how much you are looking to push this, it begs me to question if there is not a conflict of interest as well. Nymf _hideliho! 15:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've said all along I would be more than happy to replace it with an alternative/better source but I am not aware of one. It's not a conflict of interest just that this seems to be the only and most complete source of this information. In regards to full of ads look at the EBI front page, the links in EBI profiles, the links and banners in IAFD profiles - all of these sites have these kind of links, are we to remove all of these because they are full of ads I would be delighted to find a more ad-free source for this information if anyone knows of one!? NathyWashington (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not looked at the EBI website, but IAFD is different. That is a top banner with a few promotional links at the very bottom. The sole purpose of AWMDB seems to be to generate traffic to various websites. It is more or less a TGP site. Nymf _hideliho! 15:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

IAFD isn't very different to be honest. If I use Sasha Grey as an example, on her IAFD page if you expand all of the photo and vid gallery links on her profile page there are over 60 links to various websites in addition there's the top banner, click any of the DVD link information and there are dozens of links to DVD sales sites. This is a common practice of these database sites. Do you know of any sources of this info with less promotional links because I would prefer that as a source but I don't think we'll find one without these kinds of links. NathyWashington (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be wise to add AWMDB to the spam blacklist before some duplicitous SEO type comes here and starts adding it to articles just to boost traffic. Thanks to NathyWashington for bringing this to our attention. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a bit extreme Delicious carbuncle otherwise I think it would have been on every single article by now, I can't see that happening. As far as I know I'm the first person to add this source since the domain was registered. By the whois info the site started in 2007 so in 3 years I think if there was some SEO type planning to do that it would have happened by now. NathyWashington (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

issue about logo in Wikiproject tag: notice of discussion

I opened a discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#WikiProject Pornography tag as a BLP issue, itself. Could some members of this wikiproject consider the issue raised there, and comment? Thanks, --doncram (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus forming to omit the logo. Is there any special reason to keep it?   Will Beback  talk  04:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Going three times...   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Sexual content

I have spent the last few weeks trying to author a proposed guideline on Commons that has the following objectives:

• Proposal 1: Tagging all Commons image with standard Content-control software metatags including Nudity, Sexual Content, Violence, Offensive Language (in description or image), and Potentially Harmful Activities.
• Proposal 2: In an effort to reduce child pornography and images of non-consential sex activity, as well as to allow commercial reuse, requiring all "sexually explicit" images to have 18 U.S.C. § 2251 contact information.
• Proposal 3: In the meantime, start allowing voluntary submission of 18 U.S.C. § 2251 information, and develop a template that can contain it.

The response so far has been overwhelmingly negative. So far I've been blocked (for edit warring) for twice reverting some section blanking, received numerous threats, and been threatened to never use the word vandalism ever again to describe removal of content (from an admin). The proposal has been split into the subpage Commons:Commons:Sexual content/April 2010 but the same problems are starting again. Ironically I've been labeled a Americo-centric neo-puritanical prude, which is pretty laughable to those who know me here. Anyway, any and all help would be greatly appreciated in developing this very important guideline. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I did a quick scan through of the stuff and I have to agree with the general consensus against the proposal in that it seems to solve a problem that doesn't exist and in a US-centric fashion (18 U.S.C. § 2251). And I'm not just a casual bystander, I'm also an admin on Commons. Tabercil (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the images, and know nothing about Commons, so I'm just shooting my mouth off in ignorance-- but after all, this is a WP talkpage, so that's expected ;-) If, as I suspect, this is a case of people uploading images of their own tallywhackers, ddongko's and manko's and their diddlings of themselves, others, and various household appliances, agricultural products, etc., then I don't think we even need to get into the subject matter to deem these inappropriate. WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and this sort of thing is not part of "the sum of human knowledge". Yes, one (or a very few if needed) tallywhacker, one ddongko, one manko-- selected for scientific/artistic value-- might be appropriate in the right article, but we're not here to provide people a show & tell forum. It would be just as inappropriate for people to be uploading pictures of each of their goldfish. Are they? If so, I think this is not the place... So, if it means anything over there, Stillwater, tell them Dekkappai-- who has never shied away from uploading something offensive when appropriate-- says "enough with the tallywhackers already!" Dekkappai (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL... well we actually have a tag over there which can be put on an uploader's user page called {{nopenis}}, which basically says to the uploader: "thanks but we have enough of them as is." Tabercil (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

However, I think any reasonable consensus would agree this limitation should not apply to boobs & bums... But seriously, I think taking the quotation of (US) law is the wrong approach-- quoting what is and is not appropriate for a project attempting to be an encyclopedia is. Dekkappai (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel that following US law is appropriate because Wikimedia Foundation is a US based non-profit corporation. The approaches I've thought about are:

1. Following the laws in all countries. Countries like Iran forbid pornography so all sexual images will have to be removed.
2. Follow the laws in the most lenient countries, like Scandinavia, where the age of consent of pornography is 13.
3. Follow the laws of the country where the project is based.

The later seems most appropriate. - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't mistake age of consent with minimum age of pornography. Which is 18 pretty much everywhere in Scandinavia. Also, if we follow Iran's law we also must delete File:Maome.jpg so no. Garion96 (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I realize this isn't the type of response sought, but: I think that a group of interested editors collaborating together to write an article is a workable idea. I wouldn't be here if I didn't. I think asking those same editors to put together policies and guidelines about how to write articles and what to exclude is a bad idea. I think it leads, at best, to bias, and, at worst, to endless arguments, endlessly changing rules, and the majority of editors engaging in power games while a very, very small group of editors do the actual work. Sound familiar? These sorts of decisions need to be made by a person or group with authority. Sluffing this off to "consensus" discussions is bad enough. But when we come to questions of legality and international law, I think whoever is in charge here-- Jimbo? The Foundation?-- ventures into criminal negligence when they permit such decisions to be made by a "consensus" of anonymous editors. So, I bow out of the discussion now. Dekkappai (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand about pornography laws in Germany, the minimum age used to be 14, and images made during that time are still legal for use. The age is now 16, and in the case of Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Stan Spanker which were submitted by a German user, the image File:Las Vegas7.JPG has been identified by myself a few other users to portray a young woman about the age of 16 engaging in fellatio blindfolded. I would consider this to a be an identifiable person as well, as this young woman's parents and friends could easily identify her from what is visible of her face and body. Dekkappai made the point that this kind of decision should not be left to consensus but should come from management and I whole-heartily agree with that. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with your basis for determining age. Namely, the Tanner scale, which is an absolutely ridiculous and useless basis on which to determine age. It does not take into account variation in rates of development, or the fact that large numbers of women over the age of 18 might have adolescent features. I know of at least two cases of attempted convictions based on this scale where the models (Melissa-Ashley and Lupe Fuentes) were brought into testify in child pornography prosecutions based on this and demonstrated that they were over 18 when the images were taken, in at least one case *well into her 20s*. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Sexual content all changed overnight

The above policy has been rewritten unilaterally by Jimmy Wales. Apparently this is anticipation of policy that will be announced by the Wikimedia Foundation in the next few days designed to make the Wiki projects more inclusive of and acceptable to societies that aren't in to Western liberalism. Alongside this Wales has urged admins to speedily delete "pornography" from the Commons, guaranteeing immunity for those admins considered to be abusing their power and threatening to block any who reverse the deletions. This policy is supposed to include material currently in use, though admins seem to be backing off here in the face of outrage (but not from Jimbo!). One picture from the Portal:Sexuality/Featured picture/Archive was deleted (but restored by the same admin) it is File:Kaalos g locked-in.jpg (worth checking if you want to see what "pornography" might mean). Discussions are happening at the Commons:Village pump and at Commons:User talk:Jimbo Wales, though they seem academic as the decisions have supposedly already been taken. As the Wikimedia Commons is our image library this affects any and all media we use. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup. MAJOR ruckus occuring on this. The unilateral actions by Jimbo has caused several admins to quit in disgust, and Commons doesn't have all that many to begin with. As an admin there, I'll keep an eye on what's occuring. In the interim, I would ask all folks to watch for disappearing images in articles that are sexual in nature. If you spot an image disappearing, let me know ASAP and I'll see what's doable. Tabercil (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo himself deleted images that were being used at Cum shot, Pearl necklace (sexuality), and Pegging (sexual practice), so I'm not sure anybody can do anything about them. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's see... There's an alternate version of the cum shot drawing on Commons which has been missed, so I'll drop that one in the article. The pegging image is already up for undeletion, so I'll let that chug along (currently 9 to 2 in favour of restoration). And the pearl necklace one I'll put up for undeletion - given that it survived 4 previous attempts to delete, I'd say there's good odds it'll be restored. Any other redlinks or images suddenly missing?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabercil (talk • contribs) 13:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let you know if I see any others. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

All three restored. <G> Tabercil (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The file File:Sb.jpg was deleted on the basis of "Commons is not an amateur porn site". It was a close-up photo of a condom in use for gay anal sex. I guess if all photos of explicit sexual nature are being purged from Wikimedia then the deletion is consistent, though a rationale on the basis of usefulness for safe sex related education should be fairly obvious and up until this recent shift in policy would have had an open discussion rather than deletion on sight. Saunaboy (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Where was this image used? It's a lot easier to restore if I can point to a page and say "here's where it was used"... Tabercil (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it was used on WP, however it was the only available safe-sex image of male/male anal sex and similar images of male/female genitals during sex were available at that time. Given that such photos are being described as "prurient" and "pornography" (even though the people involved are not depicted) I would doubt that the original rationale of having educational value for safe-sex or condom usage articles would be considered sufficient even though such an image meets current policy for Commons. Saunaboy (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Having now looked at the undeletion discussion associated with File:Sex intercourse.jpg, File:Sb.jpg would seem to have exactly the same justification as it qualifies even less as pornography (showing less of the people involved), has an educational rationale of depicting safe sex practices and no similar image exists on Commons. The only distinction I can see is that the undeleted image shows a heterosexual image and the deleted one shows a homosexual image and consequently has the potential to upset all those people who consider homosexuality more offensive than heterosexuality. I would have thought an undeletion discussion was in order. Saunaboy (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Breast bondage has two image redlinks when viewing normally, but viewing via history, the images pop up fine. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see Commons:News regarding the sexual content purge. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• "to make the Wiki projects more inclusive of and acceptable to societies that aren't in to Western liberalism"... Freedom=oppression... Too bad Jimbo flubbed this up so badly, turning it right into the hands of the political/moral blowhard brigade. From what I see, about 95% of Commons should be deleted, because it doesn't belong in a project purporting to be an encyclopedia-- even one aspiring to the "sum of human knowledge" and one which includes erotic/sexual subjects. Allowing the moral crusaders to get this started turned it into an argument for/against censorship-- which it is now, but needn't have been... Dekkappai (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 31 articles to be referenced, a 22.5% reduction from last week. Great work! The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Playboy Playmates of XXXX lists

Now that we have all these "List of Playboy Playmates of XXXX" articles, how should we go about keeping them from being orphans?

I propose that we change all the links at the bottom of the "Playmates of XXXX" templates that are at the bottom of every Playmate's article so that the years go to that year's list. Here's {{Playmates of 2010}} as an example of the template that I'm referring to. If we go ahead with this, I think I'd put in a bot request for it since I don't think anyone wants to change 50+ links in 50+ templates by hand.

So, what say you? Dismas|^(talk) 08:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest finishing the lists first. With Tabercil's help I started most of them from 1961-1996, but paused to give an actual member of the Porn project a chance to do the rest-- (1997-2003?). Maybe one of those concerned editors who devote so much time to removing content could spend a little time adding some? ;-) Once that's all done, yes, I think linking to the lists in the templates would be more appropriate. The lists were started by hand, so I don't see why changing the templates by hand would be all that much work. Though a bot would be quicker, of course. Dekkappai (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Futanari

There's been a debate brewing since Monday about an image that has been inserted into this article, File:Futanari.png. It portrays two hermarphoditic mangia characters engaged in mutual-masterbation. The character on the left has the appearences of being in his/her early teens and the character on the right is portrayed as an adult. I have twice removed the image and have been warned not to remove the image again at risk of being blocked. I have also started a discussion on AN/I that has been pretty much just been an attack on myself. I feel that this image is illegal and a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A. I also feel that is has the potential of causing great harm to the project and as well possible legal trouble. I would appreciate more eyes on this. Thanks. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see what leads to the conclusion the red-haired character isn't an adult. Even so, it's not a real person. Valrith (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Valrith. As well I was following the deletion debate on Commons over the image, and I feel they came to the right end decision. Tabercil (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Everyone seems to see that the characters have adult characteristics. Maybe it's the style that is misleading you, Stillwater? You are aware of the kawaii / "cutesy" style of Japanese cartooning? You might want to look at Cuteness in Japanese culture (though it's not a very good article, it addresses a real aspect of Japanese pop culture). Dekkappai (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of Manga styling, however this goes beyond that. It doesn't matter is the individual portrayed is real or fiction, it's still appears to be a minor and could be prosecuted under 1466A. It compromises the educational mission of Wikipedia. Also, Commons does not respect Wikipeia's opinions, and the DR was shotgunned through in two languages without interpretation in a minimum allowable timeframe. - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, just checking. Dekkappai (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

They are unrealistic cartoon characters. They don't look like children, they look like extraterrestrials. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

One wonders whether Tex Avery had to put up with this... Dekkappai (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

SWR, you have been repeatedly trying to push your wholly subjective characterization figure in that cartoon as a minor as if it were some kind of established fact. It is, in fact, nothing but your opinion, and opinion that, as far as I can tell, no other editor shares. This opinion seems to be based entirely on the fact that the figure has, well, somewhat smallish boobies (ignoring, of course, that it also has an erection the size of an Ekrich honey smoked kielbasa). Can you please provide us with a reliable source firmly establishing the notion that B cup or less = under 18? If so, I know a few women who'd be delighted to be able to shave a few years off their age based on that novel idea. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

To borrow SJA's phrase, he has "been repeatedly trying to push" the assertion that SWR is alone in his view. He is not. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

...But Steve, don't you know you can determine a woman's age by the size of her bazooms? Something like counting the rings in a tree trunk... Fuko must be nearing the mid-point of her second century of life... Dekkappai (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

People seem to misunderstand Tanner stage analysis partly because the information available on the internet is quite limited. A few "typical" drawings do not portray how real life women develop. It also does not show cases of early and delayed development. There was a book series put out in the 50's that gave scientific analysis of many aspects of adolescence, intended for pediatricians and researchers I presume. The series was called The Adolescent Period, and some of the photographs are available here under "photography". Two of the older books in the series are available for PDF download from Google. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

But, since we're talking animation here, take a look at Olive Oyl. Presumably the cartoonists behind Popeye would be behind bars today? No need to reply, Stillwater. I've had my fill of this particular round of nonsense. Dekkappai (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

...didn't have time to finish the above thought: Clearly either Bluto or Popeye-- possibly both-- was shtupping Olive Oyl-- a flat-chested woman--, as implied by the romantic triangle, and as evidenced by the mysterious existence of Swee'Pea. Now this may sound like I'm trying to be funny, or bat-shit crazy, or both... but no more so than someone who is measuring anime areolae and making legal threats based on this data... and with that, I leave this particular rabbit hole behind. Dekkappai (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Stillwater seems to have quit wikipedia in a huff. But I have to ask this question: Has anyone here ever seen an actual human being that looked like those cartoon characters? Not I, for sure. Stillwater's mistake was in setting himself up as a "nanny" in this situation. If he was truly concerned, he should have simply taken those concerns to a trusted admin or to Godwin or whatever, and let them take action, rather than making a big brouhaha about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The devil is in the detail: in this case the "whatever". Just what action should SWR have taken? There needs to be a clear and useable process for reporting potentially illegal content of this kind, as I commented at WP:AN/I. Perhaps members of this project can contribute? Would something based on WP:COPYVIO work? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

<- Actually, I agree with you here Kenny. In fact I think that that the rules here as far as inclusion/exclusion, style, guidelines, etc., etc., etc. should be made plain and clear, and not based upon the personal opinion of groups of editors ("consensus" as we know it). This goes double when we're talking about legal matters. Jimbo, or the foundation, or whoever the hell is in charge here should lay out these things and leave us editors and contributors to edit and contribute, and not to waste an obscene amount of time arguing. To leave legal matters like this up to the personal opinion/original research/bias of individual editors (as are the other rules), is beyond absurd... Dekkappai (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! I've posted a proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Procedure_for_dealing_with_potentially_illegal_content. Contributions welcome (but please, let's not rehash this debate again at that venue) Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is: Yes, these things need to be spelled out plain an simple, but no, endless debating by editors and fake claims of "consensus" are not the way to achieve this. This kind of thing needs to be made policy by someone with real authority. Personally, I believe nearly all policy/guideline/inclusion-exclusion/etc. need to be so. It's irresponsible of those with real authority to leave these decisions up to whichever individuals or groups of editors can argue loudest and longest... And because I have no knowledge and interest in the law (except how I can avoid contact with it), I won't be contributing to the discussion. However, I'm sure there will be plenty of editors who are almost as ignorant as I am on the subject who are quite willing to impose their opinions on the project... How this "consensus" will hold up in court when a real-world law actually becomes involved will be interesting to see... Dekkappai (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The object of the proposal is to clarify the mechanism for dealing with potentially illegal content, definitely not to try to crowd-source a definition of illegality. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Jesse Starr

Hi

I've just answered a {{db-attack}} request to delete Jesse Starr (which I did, as it was unreferenced and I erred on the side of caution). However... a few minutes googling later and I realise that Mr. Starr does exist, and possibly is notable. I'm unfamiliar with notability requirements for this area, and I'm even less familiar with good sources, so would some kindly soul take pity on me and volunteer to "adopt-a-deleted-article"? If someone can provide a few good sources I'll cheerfully restore the article for improvement.

Cheers, TFOWR 20:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well looking at what was deleted, I wouldn't necessarily call it an attack article. I would call it an unreferenced BLP and thus liable for the BLP PROD, especially given the presense of details such as the person's "real name" and a statement regarding a marriage to another gay porn actor. If this were to be undeleted, pretty much the entire thing would have to be culled of such details. As well, there's no indication that I can see that the subject passes WP:PORNBIO (or at least what's left of it)... Tabercil (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tabercil. I'll leave it deleted for now, but feel free to restore it if any notability appears. Next time I'll google first, delete later ;-) TFOWR 11:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Kascha Papillon

Can someone look at Wolfowitz's campaign of deleting my edits to the articla of Golden Age star Kascha Papillon? He's calling me a vandal for restoring IMDB links which he calls spam, and for including an excerpt from a Luke Ford interview with director Eric Louzel under some claim that anything from Ford is barred as a source. I don't get it, someone please help me understand why adding sources and info makes me a vandal. UPCDAYZ (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Luke Ford's website it seems is not considered reliable, not sure about his books. Linking to every film on IMDb when there's already a link to the performer is overkill, and linking to Excalibur Films is problematic because they're a retailer. But it appears Wolfowitz did got confused by the reference to Nuke 'Em High. Louzel directed the second two films, and it looks like Wolfowitz thought Louzel was talking about the first one for some reason. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No confusion on my part; the text linked to the film I commented on. In any event, she wasn't in any of the three Nuke'Em High films. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You may be right, but are you using IMDb to verify she wasn't in any of them? They do miss credits sometimes. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

WeKinglyPigs.com

Since this was brought up at one of the Playboy related articles, I thought I'd mention this here as well just so that my comments are easier to find and better available for the people working on this WikiProject:

I believe that WeKinglyPigs (WKP) is reliable. 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. Prior to them having the WKP domain, their information was hosted at the servers of the University of Chicago. They have gathered their data for years before the WKP domain's existence. From time to time, I have compared the data on their site to the information on the Playmate Data Sheets in Playboy magazine itself. In every case, WKP's info matched.

Also, only some of the information can be sourced by Playboy's web site. For a comparison, take Teri Harrison's Playboy.com info and her WKP info. I chose her pretty randomly but the comparison works with every Playmate as far as I've seen. You'll see that her photographer, birth date, and birthplace are not listed at Playboy.com. Why Playboy has not transferred this info from their print edition to the online profile is anyone's guess. Personally, I think they take out the birthdate to not "date" their models. It's easier to keep the fantasy of a young woman if you're not also mentioning that (thinking of the older Playmates here) she was born twenty or thirty years before the reader. Dismas|^(talk) 10:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that use of this site is problmatic, although I agree that it's generally accurate in terms of transcribing the information given in the magazine. First, it is a self-published site, and therefore barred by policy as a BLP reference, and discouraged otherwise. Second, we've really got no clue, particularly for the older entries, just how accurate the underlying information is, a problem that affects both citations to this source and to the magazine and its websites, making it even more important to cite to the original source; and, third, not all the information on the site comes from the magazine, as is clear from this entry [2], where I can't find any reliable connection between the person who died on the cited date and the Playmate claiming a similar name. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Filmographies

Looking at articles about Japanese pornographic actors and actresses I have a few questions and will start with the most simple point: filmographies. Here at WP:PORN it is said that filmographies should be limited to 6 entries + additional movies if they are especially important for some reason. I think that is a good rule. Now if you look at articles about Japanese actresses there are in nearly every article many more. Actually often 70-80% of the total article is just a big list of movies with about 60 and in some cases over 100 entries. Here are some examples: Riko_Tachibana, Akiho_Yoshizawa and Yua_Aida. Ironically in some cases these big lists are even labeled as "selected filmography" and simply ignoring the very basic result of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Filmography. As if this is not enough these lists are not simply lists of movies but also contain information about the selling company, available media types, order numbers and rentable status. Only the price is missing to make it a perfect sales list. I can understand that there are difficulties to find a unified format but is this ok? But it doesn't end here. There are articles where large parts of the remaining non-list article body consist of descriptions of movies including the scene backgrounds, outfit of the subject and the performed sexual activies in more or less detail and often in tone as beeing a big station of the subjects career.

In a discussion an editor confronted with issue of the big lists replied: "Wikiproject Pornography's filmography statement is in direct opposition to standard Wikipedia policy which states complete lists of works are encouraged". I've searched a lot meanwhile, read all related guides and policies I could find but I didn't see a clear pro nor contra to this statement. Actually the related policy WP:BLP says nothing about the content which should be included and how much of it as it has other priorities. Wikipedia:ACTOR#Filmography_tables and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(lists_of_works) give no limits but only style recommendations. I personally would say that points of WP:NOT and WP:FAN could be applied here in many cases.

As I don't want to look like the evil disruptive guy who just hates porn and also think that this is a basic problem affecting most of the articles about Japanese pornographic actresses, I want to learn what is consensus in this point. I would tend to think that it might be a good idea to have all works of say Shakespeare listed on Wikipedia and it's probably also ok to have rather complete list of blockbusters where Bruce_Willis had a leading role - but for a porn star? Not to mention that the porn movies in the case to discuss are completely unknown outside of Japan and also within Japan mostly didn't receive much press coverage (if even any). Furthermore also "compilations" are listed with scenes collected from different movies. All this with the background that the subject only in few movies really had clearly the "leading role" and in contrast to writers also didn't create the actual "work".

Either way it would be ok for me but it can not be that on articles of non-Janpanese actresses and actors all current guidelines and policies are VERY strictly applied while otherwise apparently nearly anything can be added freely. There are more issues I see there regarding WP:POORSRC and the already mentioned WP:FAN. But let's start with the filmographies. Testales (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(lists_of_works) does actually state "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet". Japanese porn articles tend to be written in a different style to other porn articles as they are generally written by a seperate group of editors. Epbr123 (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You're making a huge cultural error if you are equating US and Japanese adult entertainment-- as you seem to be doing. Japanese adult entertainment and performers are far more mainstream than their US counterparts. For example, "It is not uncommon in Japan for a waning female television star or singer to feature in pornographic videos. Similarly, there are women actors from pornographic videos who move into daytime television." (Iwamura, Rosemary (1994). "Letter from Japan: From Girls Who Dress Up Like Boys To Trussed-up Porn Stars - Some of the Contemporary Heroines on the Japanese Screen". Continuum: The Australian Journal of Media & Culture, vol. 7 no. 2. Retrieved 2007-02-18.)... Also, assembling a filmography on any Japanese performer entails a huge amount of work and specialized knowledge. Your labeling these filmographies "sales list" is not only grossly insulting, it is bad faith. I suggest you apologize and go to work on a subject area in which you have some interest and knowledge, and against which you have less obvious bias. Dekkappai (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's an over-reaction, and that Dekkappai should reconsider the final sentence of his posting. Testales raises a valid point which could and should be discussed. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

BULLSHIT! You try putting together a filmography on a Japanese actor-- adult or not-- and see how you like it if someone claims you put up a "sales list". And the original poster has several times implied that something notable in Japan is not notable in the rest of the world. Does that apply to the US/English, do you suppose? Bias is bias, and I will not retract pointing it out when it is obvious. Dekkappai (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Such "crocodile tears," to use his own words, from an uncivil editor who regularly accuses those he disagrees with of bias, dishonesty, bad faith,vandalism, etc, and has even gone so far as to announce they should "rot in hell." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Hullaballoo! Dekkappai (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all let me say that it was not my intention to offend anybody here, so there is no point to use scatology here. In fact I have high respect for anybody who regulary contributes. But if there are guidelines and policies they should be applied to any content of the same category EQUALLY. When I used the term "sales list" I just described what it looks like to me, I see no offence here and I have also named the details that cause this effect and which I have not seen yet in any other BLP filmographies so far. I also do not assume bad faith - why would I? If my note leads to the impression that I accuse anybody to have purposely violated guidelines, that was not what I meant and maybe I should have written this better. But it is my impression that there is a clear difference in how strict Japanese and non-Japanese pornographic articles are treated regarding guidelines and policies which I find rather unsatisfying. It is hardly understandable that a specific type of information is allowed at one place but not at another place with a smiliar topic. Statements like "That the length of this article is more than other articles only means that it has been worked on more than those others" do not make it better.

So here is an example what happens to a non-Japanese article when data in question gets added. So it's kinda ridiculous (to say it nicely) to basically state that other articles are just small because nobody contributes. Especially when the current tolerance level until the deletion because of not NPOV, beeing promotional and fancruft is so low while the same types of details can also be found on many Japanese actor articles and this even mostly quoted from or based on sources who clearly have the intention to sell or promote related products and therefore are actually no WP:RS.

WP:FAN says: "The use of the term implies that an editor does not regard the material in question as encyclopedic, either because the entire topic is unknown outside fan circles, or because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole."

In my opinion that is the case for a lot of content in the articles in question Naho Ozawa is a good example here. By saying "not known outside of Japan" I did not say anything about the notabilty of the subject which is especially with the given example another topic (just on a sidenote for now: I wonder if any Japanese actor article has ever been challenged for notability in a AfD so far). What I wanted to point at is that very likely only true fans from Japan would be interessted in the very detail that is often given in the articles. It is exactly like the quote above from WP:FAN says, the exclusion of what an actor wore, what the setting was and which sexual activies were performed (this for several movies!) would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole. By the way I recently even made sure that there is no basic restriction for adding content that is only of interesst in one country. So why would argue against that here? I also took the issue that I see with filmographies to the related project page and after trying to find some information myself. So please let's stick to the treatment of filmographies possibly including the description of movies within the article itself for pornographic articles for now. Testales (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

OK... The Wikiproject Pornography makes an artificial limitation on filmographies which is not only in opposition to general Wikipedia guidelines, it encourages original research and bias-- who chooses which 5-6 films to include in the list of works? Who says only 5-6 are "encyclopedic" while the rest are not? You seem to want to belittle the subject matter by comparing it to the works of Shakespeare. Well, yes, obviously the works of a performer in adult films is less significant to the "sum of human knowledge" than are the works of Shakespeare. But they are still part of it. Personally, I think comparing Bruce Willis' body of work to the Bard makes his full filmography look pretty silly as well. But I accept we should have an article on both, and I believe that we should cover both subjects in an encyclopedic manner-- thorough and complete, with a complete list of both their works... I can understand objections from an aesthetic view to an article which is dominated by a complete filmography. Would it help to address your concerns if we broke the lengthier filmographies off to stand-alone filmography lists, leaving only the films/videos most significant to the performer's career in the performer's article? See: Yumi Yoshiyuki / Yumi Yoshiyuki filmography‎ for an example. Dekkappai (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dekkapai says "putting together a filmography", and that suggests that some of these filmographies are not in themselves sourced, but are straying into original research or [[synthesis. I mention an example of the problems this might cause at Talk:Rinako Hirasawa. If an actor is notable enough for reliable secondary sources to compile a filmography then by all means include it. Otherwise the list will have to be partial, with individual performances individually sourced. Oh, and by the way, I have seen worse things than "bullshit" at Wikipedia: no need to apologise this time. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've participated in a Featured List discussion in which the filmography was cited exactly as is this one. All entries on the list are sourced to the citation at the top of the list. We could source each entry separately, but that would lead to claims of "SPAM" / advertising. If you have any knowledge at all of Japanese cinema, you would realize how absurd is your presumption that every "notable" person has a complete, citable filmography. To claim that every cited source in an article need be "complete" is as absurd as your claims of SYNTH / OR. Dekkappai (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Dekkapai also says "putting together an article", so where are the crocodile tears over every other article on Wikipedia? The little tango is getting pretty boring, come out and say something honest. Dekkappai (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Call my comments absurd if you like, but at least let them be the comments I actually made. I did not say that every notable person has a complete citable filmography, I said "notable enough for a RS to compile a filmography" -- the existence of a reliable filmography is strong evidence for notability, not the other way round. I suggest that incomplete lists in sources can lead to problems with OR and SYNTH -- I did not say that they necessarily do so; I did not say that every cited source needs to be complete. Now perhaps you would like to say whether you agree or disagree with what I'm actually saying here? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A number of points on filmographies for Japanese actresses (this is going to take a while). 1) As far as the PORNBIO recommendation for no more than 6 works, please also note the next part: "Providing links to the appropriate IMDB, IAFD, EGAFD, and/or BGAFD filmographies (in the infobox or under "External links") should allow readers access to complete filmographies". Also note that none of these sources will give you "complete filmographies" for any Japanese actress (or much of an incomplete one for that matter) so the guideline makes no sense for Japanese topics. Complete filmographies are not available for Japanese actresses as they are for US and some European actresses, so this is why Japanese topics are treated differently from other porn articles. Simple, no? 2) The filmographies are labeled Selected or Partial because they are not complete. This is called "honesty". 3)These are not sales lists, the companies and product codes are added to make it more convenient for Wikipedia users (remember them?) who may not be conversant with Japanese characters. English translations for the videos vary widely and often have nothing to do with the Japanese titles so the code numbers are the easiest way to identify them. And as for the sneering reference to "rentable status", it might be useful to take a little time to learn about other cultures and their mores before commenting. Japanese videos are censored and this censoring is mediated by a number of voluntary organizations created by the AV industry for the purpose. Until fairly recently, only videos with seals from one of those organizations (NEVA) could be made available for rental in stores. Other videos could be sold directly and often had more lenient censorship criteria. This led a number of companies to issue both "rental" and "sales" versions of their products, often with different content and different product codes. These are different items and any serious attempt at documenting a filmography should take this into account. Capisci? 4) As far as Shakespeare and Bruce Willis and AV actresses (I think that it is essentially impossible to use the term "porn star" without a measure of denigration), it is quite possible to argue their respective merits, but NOT as a Wikipedia editor. This is blatant POV; we have no right to require articles to be of a certain length because of their VALUE! Who gets a longer article, Bruce Willis or Yasunari Kawabata based on value? I mean, who knows who he is outside of Japan? Remember "sum of human knowledge", not sum of what one person values as knowledge or what is valued in one country. It may seem an extreme position, but I can see no difference in knowledge of Shakespeare's works or an AV actress' works. They both represent knowledge and I consider that to be above value judgment - and I think that anyone else who pretends to be an editor here should feel the same. And if someone or something is "not known outside of Japan", doesn't that make it even more important to have a good Wikipedia article on them so that users (them again) can learn about the topic in question?? 5) All the filmographies are sourced. They are no more OR or SYNTH or any of those other bad words than any of the thousands of "List of..." in Wikipedia. 6) Stuff about fans is just silly, this is a multi-billion dollar industry we're talking about here, not some garage band. - I could go on but probably nobody read this far anyway. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to be sarcastic ("Wikipedia users (remember them?)"), patronising ("take a little time to learn about other cultures") or agressive ("Capisci?). 1) Firstly the listed databases are also for non-Japanese rarely complete. So if complete filmographies are also for pornographic actors are acceptable based on the the quotation that Epbr123 included in his reply, there should be generally no restriction to create a comprehensive filmography based on WP:RS if an editor wants to do that. It should not be forbidden because of the mere existence of IMDb & Co unless a clear criteria could be found that defines how "incomplete" these database have to be for a certain actor to justify a more complete filmograhpy on Wikipedia. I will write more on that again as an extra part especially as this discussion is apparently not new, just see this only as reply to your comment. 2) "selected" vs "partial", I mentioned this because of this. Basically "selected" would be POV and just "filmography" may lead to the impression that it is complete. So "partial" would be best and "filmography" only may still be accepted while "selected" should not to be used - to my understanding. So it's actually only a matter of style. I thought that would be obvious because I already inluded a link to the RFC discussion. 3) "sales lists" That's a lot of background information that you gave and I also see now your point why the Japanese filmographies are made that way. I still see small issues with that but will bring that up separately. Either way, what you said should also bascially be added to the project page here in the filmography section (or maybe even a in new section) when this discussion has ended to make clear why Japanese filmographies may differ in some points from the style guides here and here as this is not obvious. 4) I will address this again in an extra note later. 5) I think there is no problem to assemble filmographies based on different RS and for these sole purpose I think even commercial sources who sell the related products can be seen as WP:RS while they on the other hand should absolutely NOT be quoted for any claims about the actor ("best", "hottest", "anal queen" etc.) because obviously beeing promotional, see WP:POORSRC and WP:REDFLAG. It's also neither OR nor SYNTH because just facts are listed from different sources without any logical conclusion as illustrated in the example of WP:SYN. But I also didn't bring up this point. 6) To keep WP:FAN in mind is not silly because this "multi-billion $" statement can also be applied to say Star Wars and this even more because single actors or pornographic movies are usually are NOT the center of a "multi-billion" business but are only a very small part of it. In any case it is possible to add so much details that even for the very known Star Wars series these information will be very likely only of interesst for fans. While it may rather difficult to agree on a useable definition of what is FANCRUFT in general, it should be possible to find consensus at least for the description of movie content (or even generally content) for the pornography project. So I would like to see if some information gets added to the project page regarding this point at the end of this discussion. Well and now I could assume "bad faith" for not believing that your comments are read to the end. ;) Testales (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's (edit conflict) check a "Featured list" filmography: Vittorio Storaro filmography. Where is the reliable source with the complete filmography on which this is based? Allmovie appears to be the only source with a straight filmography on him. Just at first glance we see Attack of the Normans (1962) is not on Allmovie's filmography. I presume it's listed at another source, though it is not cited in the film's entry on our filmography. Now, according to your reasoning Allmovie is now invalid as a source for the filmography, because it is not "complete", and the list is OR / SYNTH. So, if there's not more going on here than what is being openly spoken, why should the sourcing of the filmography to a Japanese adult film actress be held to a higher standard than a Featured list on an internationally-renowned cinematographer? Dekkappai (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that "your" means me, that isn't what I said. If you want to waste time arguing against things that haven't been said, that's up to you. But your insinuations about "more going on here than what is being openly spoken" are not helping the discussion. Say what you mean, backed up with accurate quotations, or say nothing at all. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, nice dodge... But back to the discussion, it appears that the filmography for this actress, as it currently stands, meets, if not exceeds, Featured list criteria. So our concerns are gone, right? Dekkappai (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion appears to be about two things - the desirability of a limit on the length of a filmography and the difficulty of compiling a reliable filmography from partial sources. There seems to be a good case for having a reliable, complete list if such a thing can be compiled. However, the reliability and completeness of one such list only shows that it is possible to achieve these desirable goals (which must surely be the underlying criteria), not that it has been done so in every case. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think (and I think general WP practise agrees), that lists of works should be as complete as possible. I haven't looked at it lately, but I believe the statement on lists of works used to point out that these were especially desirable if complete lists were not already readily available. This in fact implies the use of multiple partial lists as sources, nicht wahr? Even if it doesn't, as I've said before, each entry in the list is basically a stand-alone list of info on one film/video, and can be sourced accordingly, and put in chronological order. Personally I believe (and I think the statement on complete "List of works" agrees), that this is a perfectly acceptable thing for us to do at Wikipedia. It is no more "Synthesis" or "Original research" than assembling any other article out of bits & pieces. Dekkappai (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, that's not what I said. I said that "some of these filmographies are not in themselves sourced, but are straying into original research or synthesis." Similarly, some WP articles are not sourced but stray into OR and SYNTH. I then gave an example where I felt that was a concern. Dekkappai is in danger of reacting to my rather moderate statement (one or some articles may) into an extreme opposite (no articles can). That extreme is untenable, and by labelling the question as meaningless, leads to the danger of making it hard, if not impossible, to discuss these undesirable tendencies when they do in fact exist. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but you're going to have to give an example, Kenilworth. In regards to adult entertainment, I generally work only on the Japanese (& some Korean) articles and I'm not aware of one that has an unsourced filmography. Cherryblossom1982 and I are pretty careful about that. Obviously we're not perfect and may have missed some. If you know of some, please point them out and we will work on them. If you're talking about non-Japanese articles, then, obviously, none of my comments above apply. Dekkappai (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I already did, perhaps you missed it: "I mention an example of the problems this might cause at Talk:Rinako Hirasawa." The concerns I mentioned there were inconsistent incomplete sources. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

But that filmography is sourced. I'm not aware than any of them are inconsistent, but some sources list some works. Will individual citations at each film/video entry address this concern? If so, we can do that. This will result in many citations to the same few sources, so we need agreement-- maybe from this project-- that after doing that work the filmography will not then be slapped with a "SPAM" tag. Dekkappai (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

For someone who seems to dislike being misquoted, I have to point out to the former poster that he has quoted himself as saying "some of these filmographies are not in themselves sourced" but when asked to specify which filmographies are unsourced as per the quotation, again quotes himself as saying "I mention an example of the problems this might cause at Talk:Rinako Hirasawa" and refers to that talk page. And amazingly enough nowhere on that page is there mention of filmographies that "are not in themselves sourced" but only concern about "inconsistent incomplete sources" (whatever they are, what's a consistent incomplete source and how do you tell the difference). So I have to ask - Are you misquoting yourself??? :)Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm distinguishing, as I made clear at the talk page I linked to, between "sourced" and "compiled". "Sourced" means that there is a reliable source for the list: "compiled" means that several sources of various degrees of completeness or consistency have been used, in a process which may be (but is not necessarily) WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Since you ask, inconsistent sources are those which say different things; incomplete sources are those which are not complete; inconsistent incomplete sources are sources which are not complete in themselves and inconsistent with each other. I'm trying to focus on whether this "compilation" process is always a good thing. Clear? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And once again, "composing", "assembling", "putting together", whatever you want to call it-- that's how Wikipedia articles are written. There is no requirement that every source cited in an article be "complete". The Vittorio Storaro filmography shows it is not required even of Featured lists, much less filmographies attached to a Stub/Start class article. It is not "Synthesis" to present release dates, director, company, title of films in chronological order. Each is individually citable and claiming that chronological arrangement is "synthesis" strains credibility. Again, though such things do happen even with most "reliable" of sources, I am unaware of inconsistency between the sources cited in this filmography. Dekkappai (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to beat this to death, but any article in Wikipedia is written by compiling "several sources of various degrees of completeness or consistency" except in the case of an article with only one source. If one source was complete, there would be no point in having a second and if two sources were completely consistent, there would also be no point in having more than one since they would both be the same. So any article of reasonable length and complexity has to be compiled from those "several sources of various degrees of completeness or consistency." Is this "always a good thing"? Obviously, nothing is ever "always a good thing" and any practice can be misapplied but since it remains the only practical way of writing a Wikipedia article, I think we have to say it is good enough.Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Tracey Adams

A user who is apparently the subject of this article (and I have no reason to doubt her claims) would like some help getting the page up to date with more accurate info. I'm trying to help her as best I can but the project is outside my usual scope in terms of topic and I don't know of any good sources for actors from the time she worked (late 80s - early 90s) actively in the industry. Obviously, WP:COI is an issue and we're hoping to work in such a way that this isn't a problem. You can see the relevant details in the history of the article itself, on the article talk page, and a bit on the user talk page here. Thanks in advance for any help you guys can provide. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Filmographies - A Summarization Attempt

As this has gotten a bit lenghty already, I will try to summarize it a bit.

The project page states with its very first point:

"This project covers various topics related to the subject of pornography, such as: (...) Pornographic actors, actresses and models, as well as related infobox templates. Additionally, the project is to implement a standard means of procuring information on pornographic actors, as well as to address what is proper for an encyclopedic article on porn stars".

But even for the mere filmography there appears to be no consensus although this topic has already been discussed several times:

• Archive 1 - Partial Filmography
• Archive 1 - Partial filmographies redux
• Archive 1 - Filmographies - round three
• Archive 3 - Rename this project: "Wikipedia censorship of_pornographic filmographies"
• Archive 3 - Revisiting the "six rule"

Pro and Contra for comprehensive filmographies in scope of Wikipedia guidelines and policies

Pro:

Manual of Style (list of works) (guideline)

"Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet." (And no public DB is complete for pornographic movies or even nearly complete for every actor.)

Possibly Pro:

WP:NOTCENSORED (policy) and more specifically Wikipedia:Sexual_content (essay). I mention it here only because one discussion started based on this.

Contra:

WP:NOTDIRECTORY (policy)

This describes that "directories" and "sales catalogs" are not wanted. So I think matches the question much better than WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Strictly seen an article listing 100 movies and has a little BLP text on top still remains a directory or given - enough detail, even a sales catalog.

WP:FAN (essay) - But this is actually only an eassay and is not (and can not be) very detailed.

Not applicable:

WP:INDISCRIMINATE (policy)

This part of WP:NOT bascially describes what material does not deserve an own article but says nothing about the content of articles that can be included additionally. Furthermore nothing comparable to an appended list of movies is mentioned. It starts with "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be: " and then "Plot-only description of fictional works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listing of statistics", "News reports", "Who's who" and "FAQs" are listed. None of this can be applied to articles containing a large filmography. The point was nevertheless brought up many times in the discussions and is even still listed as justification the filmography restriction on the project page.

Pro and Contra in discussions

PRO:

• good to find a (more) comprehensive list on wikipedia as no external database is complete for itself
• no actual space restrictions
• has been done already for many other articles, including any movies that are notable itself

Although I think the last point goes in the direction of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and should be not that relevant.

CONTRA:

• long lists of not-notable works are of little interesst
• hard to support i.e. difficult to check relevance and correctness in detail
• also include compilations or those are difficult to sort out on big lists
• most existing articles stick to notable works only already, so it's "common sense"

I hope I didn't miss a major argument of either side.

Current Situation

In scope of "WikiProject Pornography" many articles about Japanese actors seem to ingore the current filmography restriction as defined on the project main page. There may be other articles too but I only know about the Jenna Jameson filmography. To my subjective impression most of the editors in the discussion would prefer the 6-rule as it is. But in any way the point should either be removed from the porject page if there is no consensus or be extended to reflect a consensus that also ensures that this discussion will not come up over and over again.

Editor USER:Tim1965 made a good and structured suggestion in one of the last discussions how this problem can be solved and a compromise could look like. Unfortunately it remained uncommented. If this is not acceptable maybe this question should be taken to a "higher instance". Testales (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there is really no need for this discussion. Full works of lists are encouraged. Wikiproject Porn's unique restriction is out of synch with the rest of the project. It needs to go. The only issue I see is when a long filmography dominates a short article. The solution to this is the same as everywhere else on Wikipedia: Summarize the long section (in this case, just list works most significant to the bio subject's career) and break the full filmography off to a stand-alone.

I should point out that if pornography is going to continue to be discriminated against here, that some cultural differences need to be taken into account to avoid undue, outright bias against Japanese cinema. Pink films (which I've adopted as my main editing interest lately), are "pornographic" only in a very outdated, very softcore sense. They are simply independent Japanese films which have a minor quota of T&A just so that they'll get distributed and so that they'll have an audience. If this unfair filmography limitation is going to remain, then Pink films need to be declared non-pornographic to avoid unfairly discriminating against nearly all Japanese indie cinema. (Reminder: Many of Japan's top filmmakers have worked in pink cinema. Just one example: Yōjirō Takita, last year's winner of the (U.S.) Academy Award for Best Foreign Film started out in Pink film, worked in the genre for years, made a significant contribution to the genre, and the films he made in this genre are a significant part of his body of work. Are we going to censor the filmography of an international Academy-award-winner just because this project says so?) Also, even the "Adult Videos" available in Japan are not pornographic in the way we think of them in the west, in that the genitals are not shown. So the Japanese subjects really do not fall under the watch of this Wikiproject and should be exempt from any artificial restrictions created by it. Dekkappai (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If Pink films are actually softcore as can been judged from the related article, they are not in scope of this project. The Emanuelle movies and the works of Russ Meyer for example are also not part of this project. I would also say that softcore movies usually have a higher content "quality" than the average pornographic movie. In the latter one clearly the most of the time is used to depict sexual activies while the first is more focussed on a plot. Testales (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "Pink films" are no more explicit than Emanuelle or Russ Meyer films-- maybe even less explicit than his later films. True, most exist just for the purpose of softcore titillation, but even those are shot on 35mm film, and have storylines / acting / professional directing / cinematography, etc., which put them in a different category than simple porno-videos. And a significant number of them are quality erotic films done by directors/writers/performers with high reputations even in the mainstream. People like Kōji Wakamatsu, Hisayasu Satō, Mitsuru Meike, Takahisa Zeze, Kazuhiro Sano, Junko Miyashita, Naomi Tani, etc... The Japanese label them "porno" (such as the "Roman porno" series), but in the west this carries the connotation of low-quality hardcore films, which the pink films-- even the lowest-quality of them-- definitely are not. I've always categorized them as "pornographic films" because of the Japanese terminology, but felt uncomfortable doing so because of the western connotations... Simply "erotic films" is more appropriate in the western context. The argument could be made, because of Japanese censorship laws, that even the "Adult Videos" available in Japan are not hardcore pornography in the western sense... However I'm not comfortable with us editors making value judgments like this. If it's "porn" no matter how soft or hard, no matter how high-quality or low, then we should simply label it "porn". And doing so should place the articles under no more restrictions than any other subject area... Dekkappai (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Count me in the support of full filmographies. I never agreed with the partial filmography this wikiproject uses. Simply because it's not complete, and who decides what films are notable to be in the list? Garion96 (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to add this, it was also already discussed. Notability of films would either strictly be descided based on the usual criteria or in wider view as beeing notable for the career of the actor like first and last movie. Testales (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I know. I just don't agree with it. These are article criteria, these shouldn't be criteria for a filmography. Even non pornographic actor articles don't have standards that high. Garion96 (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional note

Generally when looking at pornographic movies it should be taken into account that there are a few points in matters of "quality" which are different from mainstream movies:

• it takes only relatively little time to shoot a single scene which usually makes up 15-20% of the average pornograhpic movie, low budget movies are typically shot within a single day
• it is in most cases difficult to tell which actor has the lead role
• some movies have no plot at all (see next point for example) or consist only of scenes which are collected from other movies usally based on a theme or specific actor (compilations)
• there are many cases where scenes are shot seperately and only later collected on a media (currently usually a DVD) this is done by many big porn sites to sell their stuff in a second way after offering it online first for download (e.g. the Brazzers network does this)

Testales (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A Solution?

Several days have past without any further responses and I also have the impression of some tiredness to discuss this over and over again without reaching a clear consensus. Therefore I suggest the two following options for a "final" answer to the question whether comprehensive filmgraphies of pornographic actors should be permitted or not:

1. Comprehensive filmgraphies are permitted and a guide is to be agreed on which describes how movies are added to the article, considering WP:SIZE, Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists, the previous style related RFC and maybe having also mobile devices in mind too. So for example a raw number could be given after which an own list article is created for the filmography and whether the most "notable" (for the career of the subject) movies are kept additionally at the article mainpage, so bascially similiar to the way Tim1965 suggested here. The current "six rule" gets either removed complety or turned into a suggestion only.

1. A RfC is started and its outcome will (hopefully) decide what to do.

If there are no objections against that procedure and no fundamentally new input, preferably from other than the few the editors who already posted their opinion, and also the first point is not accepted, I would start the RfC in 3 or 4 days as the bot will otherwise simply archive the problem once again. I think all relevant arguments were already given, many times mostly, and should be rather completely listed above.

Testales (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for an RfC, which will just drag this discussion out further, create more drama and waste more time. It's simple: This project has created a POV/Biased criterion which is in opposition to a general one accepted throughout Wikipedia. Complete works of lists are encouraged. WP-wide consensus on this has long been established. Dekkappai (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been following this conversation since I saw it when I posted my request for help a few days ago. I don't see what the big deal is with including more than six − be it 20, 50, 100, or all − of an actor's movies. I've seen plenty of actors over in WP:FILM and WP:TV who have some of their most inane and unnotable credits (bringing their lists to well over six) listed in my years of reading and editing as an IP. And that hasn't changed since I got off my lazy butt and registered. So why should it be any different for the adult movie folks? Either those TV and "straight" movie actors pages are wrong (possible, of course) or some flexibility would seem to be needed for this project. I don't know if the opinion of someone outside the project really matters but I thought I'd throw it out there that this person who doesn't really know a lot about porn doesn't see the big deal. Millahnna (mouse)talk 14:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. No concerns-- anyone is free to comment anywhere, Millahnna (and some do just that :-) The only concerns I can see which are different from other filmographies/lists of work are 1) length. Some of these might be quite long. But, as has been said, just summarize in the main article, then break the full filmography off. Many Japanese (non-"adult") filmmakers have quite extensive filmographies (Takeo Kimura filmography comes to mind, and the only reason this one is not a featured list now is due to an objection over the red links-- author was told to start stubs on those hundreds of films first). and 2) the unspoken elephant in the closet (or whatever the expression is): this is porn. "Wikipedia is not censored" is the easy, quick reply. Personally, I think the "eww it's porn!" concern could be neutralized by having the user click an "Over 21" box the first time s/he comes on such a page. This would prevent kids from accidentally stumbling on it, and put the responsibility for outrage that some have over these sorts of things squarely on their own shoulders. This is outside the purview of this particular discussion, of course, and would probably be controversial, but it's a thought... Dekkappai (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I bascially agree with you and as Millahnna confirmed again there are apparently no restrictions on other areas when it comes to filmographies. I just want either a clear rule regarding this or the current one removed or reworded/improved to be a guide with recommendations only. It is not acceptable that a restriction is applied for some articles but for others not (and that's also the "drama" ;) ). Aside from Jenna Jameson and Japanese actors there are some more articles which violate the 6-rule too, such as Tianna_(pornographic_actress), Yasmine Lafitte and Ava Rose, even if not so extremely and not affecting the readability at all. Testales (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"there are apparently no restrictions on other areas when it comes to filmographies" Actually it may well be that there are restrictions (in fact I vaguely remember reading in the MOS some bit about keeping it to only notable roles or some such). But it definitely isn't limited to only six roles and based on what I've seen on some "straight" actor pages, some folks' definition of notable is very... liberal. That said, I should point out that I do primarily stick to actual movies and tv shows and not actors in my editing efforts (I live to write plot summaries for some dorky reason) so it could be that when I've seen not-so-notable movie roles listed, it's been reverted after I visited. Still, their restrictions in terms of number are much more flexible than here from what I can tell following this debate. From outside the project it very much seems like there's a bit of squeamishness about listing "Anal Action" parts 1-20, or whatever. As Dekkappai said, length could potentially be an issue if you list all of an actor's roles. I know porn actors rack up titles a lot faster than other actors. But it seems like there's already good suggestions in place for addressing that as well as the "minors on the intertubes reading stuff their parents get cranky about" issue. So all that leaves is the squeamishness. Which makes me wonder; why on earth would one look up such a list (or edit one) if one finds the titles so upsetting? In any case, good luck to you guys working it out. And I commend you for a remarkably civil conversation all around. Cheers. Millahnna (mouse)talk 13:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It actually is really good to have some "outside" opionions, Millahnna. :) Your statement also confirms what seemed the root of problem, that this 6-rule here is an own "invention" of this project and may not be in line with the usual handling of similiar topics on Wikipedia. For me personally it's ok either way - under the condition that it then is applied clearly and equally throughout the project's articles. Speaking of flexibility, if pornograhpy is generally allowed on Wikipedia, more specifially not only in a very strict educational way and kept to the absolute minimum, then consequently ANY related information should be allowed too. Wikipedia:Sexual_content states "Any material which serves an encyclopedic purpose should be preserved.". In my option this does not limit the content to be strictly educational. So for example where very "dry" defintion of the term Gang bang maybe still educational, I have doubt about information about Gang bang records. But both are to my understand encyclopedic or can be presented in a encylopedic way. Maybe that's part of the problem. Testales (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that full filmographies should only be encouraged if a reasonably-comprehensive, English-language filmography isn't available elsewhere online. IAFD will always do a better job than Wikipedia can at maintaining reliable, up-to-date filmographies of our hundreds of Western performers. I do though disagree with the six-movie rule due to POV and OR concerns; articles should either have a full filmographies or none at all. Epbr123 (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I too see no reason to drag this out further in an RfC, I think a consensus has been clearly given. No support has been evident for extending the 6 movie "rule" beyond its present reach and, as I pointed out above, the rationale for that rule is that complete filmographies are available elsewhere for Western porn actresses. It follows then that in cases where these complete filmographies are not available, the "rule" does not apply. That seems to be quite straightforward and simple so I can't see any justification for further discussion. Although, like User:Epbr123 and User:Dekkappai, I can see some problems with OR and POV in selecting out "important" works, in practice filmographies for Western stars are generally eschewed so the concerns are mostly theoretical, and, again in my opinion, not worth spending more time over.Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The current rule clearly and ultimately states "Filmographies are to be limited to six films at most; any additional listings above that number must meet at least one of the following criteria:". There are no ifs, no buts. That means most of the articles about Japanese actors violate it and Jenna Jameson's filmography violates it too for no apparent reason. It also caused a lot of discussions, so obviously it should not remain as it is. It is true that the existence of public databases was used as explanation for the given restriction but there are nevertheless no exemptions defined where this rule does not apply. It is still only an explanation what the idea behind the rule was. Furthermore don't tell me that the AV directory that you mostly use as source and which easily can give results like this can not compared with the result lists that IMBd & Co deliver. Not to mention that IMBd and IAFD mainly live from contributions of users. So it's bascially possible to put this there and not on Wikipedia, even if it maybe not as detailed and readable as you do it here - but the same applies for western actors too. That filmograhpies for western stars are currently "eschewed" is no wonder, as the filmograhpy rule clearly forbids it and everytime somebody starts to add something in that field it gets removed nearly instantly. That was also the main reason why I brought up the issue again. This rule is just inconsistent and without any doubts questionable as it is currently. Testales (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's nearly impossible to prove whether a filmography is complete or not. Furthermore the filmography of active actors is steadily growing. So Epbr123, I can not see what the point is of "either complete or nothing". For the same reason it may in some cases be difficult to say what is "reasonable-comprehensive". While the filmographies for well known actors are generally fairly complete at IMDb and IAFD, that does not have to apply for less known actors too, not to mention that frequent name changes of some actors can lead to confusion resulting in different entries for the same actor. Furthermore, commenting on specific films and adding only them as "partial filmography" is always a bit POV. Meaning even if a rule is defined saying that filmographies are only allowed if there is no "reasonably-comprehensive" list, it's still unclear if there are restrictions on hightlighting "selected" films and appending them as "partial" which was probably the idea of the current 6-rule. Well unless it is clearly defined that only filmes are to describe and additionally list which are "notable" as Wikipedia defines it, which I will by the way want to discuss next. But I think we are moving in circles, these arguments alreay have been brought up I think. You said "full filmographies should only be encouraged if reasonably-comprehensive", that's fine but on the other hand it really should not be forbidden to add it anyway. Otherwise consequently the filmography article of Jenna Jameson would have to be removed consequently. So if anyone feels he or she can do a better (i.e. more detailed and readable) filmography, it should be allowed. And there is still nothing said about filmographies that are obviously "partial" and created based on POV importance. Testales (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no justification for an arbitrary limit of 6, or any other number. What I do want to see is lists, partial or otherwise, verified by citing reliable sources without original research or synthesis. It has to be admitted that this is an area in which reliable sources are particularly hard to come by. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why u still bring up this synthesis and original research arguments, I thought this was already resolved. These points are simply not applicable for mere lists of movies given that they are correctly referenced to WP:RS. Finding reliable sources to prove that an actor played a role in specfic movie is furthermore by far the easiest task of sourcing an BLP article, as basically even well known commercial sources can be considered as reliable for just this because it is in their own interesst to offer correct lists for the stuff they sell. The creation of a rather complete list based on data from many different sources on the other hand can be a rather hard job but it is still not original research or synthesis. You are also the only editor seeing a problem here so far. Testales (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A argument I do not and did not make (essentially that OR and SYNTH were universal problems) was dismissed by a couple of people while I was away. My point, that OR/SYNTH can be an issue in certain cases, is, I think, unrefuted. As to those dangers, let me mention a few points. Porn actors often use or share pseudonyms; short clips from other films can be inserted; there is a strong commercial imperative to make false claims about notable actors playing more significant roles. I have seen discussions on Wikipedia attempting to resolve some of these issues which clearly consitute original research. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've now checked the example you gave earlier to make your point clear. You initially said "My point is that the source says that she has made 2 movies. This contradicts other sources. Otherwise putting partial, contradictory or incomptible lists together ventures into original research or synthesis.". I can not agree on that (see above) and I also think that everything was said there. I also do not want to include this discussion here, my intention is for now is only to verify, change or remove the 6-rule. If you feel that there is a general problem with sourcing of filmographies, I would ask you to create a new section, clearly describe the problem you see again and add some examples. If you can not find several examples then it might be a specific problem which can surely be solved on the related talk page. It is furthermore true that in some cases actors may appear on the cover of a media (or at least are listed on that) which do not play a role there either because it was just an error of the publisher (maybe the actor was replaced at the last minute) or because of better promotion. Either way that's nothing that can be solved in scope of Wikipedia. It can just lead to strange problem: If there is a media which lists an actor who does not appear then removing the media from a list (copied from a otherwise RS) because of just watching and confirming the non-appearance, may be seen as WP:OR. On the other hand it's a "published source" everybody is free to check its content. If you quote a book you also do not need a RS which quoted the same part of the book before and reading the book is also not seen as OR. Anyway, that's another topic, so feel to create a new section for it if you think that would help somehow. Testales (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Anti-pornography movement

The anti-pornography movement article is in a terrible state at the moment: the article almost entirely concentrates on the Dworkin/MacKinnon strand of 1970s feminist anti-pornography thinking, and has substantially removed coverage of all other aspects of anti-pornography campaigning, whether feminist or not. See Talk:Anti-pornography_movement#Omission_of_earlier_anti-pornography_movements for more on this. -- The Anome (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: I've now reverted this article to the version as of 7th July. However, the remarks about the Feminist views on pornography article still hold: it needs a lot more effort to be devoted to the suffragette-era and pre-suffragette-era periods, just for a start. -- The Anome (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Acceptable sources of fair use photos section

Okay, thanks to the edit warring over images in the Japanese article, I notice this section is cited to a lot in justifying that the image can be used. This part was written sometime in 2007. The fair use or non-free content policies and guidelines on wikipedia have gotten a lot stricter over the years and we need to re-review this section and rewrite to comply with WP:NFC (a guideline) and WP:NFCC (a policy). If there are any conflict between the two, which I see there's a big whopper with regards of how free content can be created, the policy trumps the guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The section does seem to still comply with the WP:NFC guideline, which tries to clarify how the WP:NFCC policy should be interpreted. The WP:NFC guideline is still very subjective though, and it's understandable how edit wars could occur. Regarding the disputed images, in my view some have reasonable claims for fair-use, but most seem clearly invalid (eg. Junko Miyashita is still acting, Manami Yoshii is still only 28 and there's no source that she's a retired recluse). It would be good to have a centralised place to discuss these images, and maybe use the discussion to clarify the projects guidelines further. Epbr123 (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah-- "some might get through, we'd better change the rules" again... as I've said before, I would have let these images get deleted without raising a word in opposition. This slow removal of these images has been going on in the 2 or 3 years since the policy changed, and I haven't opposed any of their removals during that time. It's the input from other editors, met with edit-warring, that brought this to a head. Some of the other editors have brought forth arguments which, I think, at least needed discussing, even if they were eventually refuted. Instead they were edit-warred out... I agree with Epbr123 above. Junko Miyashita is still active, in non-adult films. Most of the others removed, I'd still let go without argument. The one exception is Kimiko Matsuzaka who has made press for zealously guarding her privacy-- but as these things tend to be "all or nothing", I won't be surprised to see that one go either. All these images were added back when images of living people were tolerated. Frankly, I've long given up on such images, and had resigned to seeing them all go. Dekkappai (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

For Kimiko, It's still a stronger rationale to write in the fair use rationale that the image conveys what she looks like during her career (partly responsible for her notability) and that a newly created image would not serve that purpose if we ignore POLICY 1 of NFCC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, my toleration for absurdity seems to be diminishing. We've now got an Admin refuting Japanese law (which was never made as a claim for the images), and swinging the Block hammer around. The issue, again, was the edit-warring and the bullying. But the issue, as usual, gets lost in legalese, and (in one surprising case) outright statements of bigotry against the topic... And so goes "consensus"... I'll bow out here-- nothing lost that I didn't expect to see lost eventually. Dekkappai (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty pointless to discuss this here. I will bring that up to the policy talk page. Epbr123 even confirmed my guessing regarding the relation between WP:NFCC and WP:NFC, one beeing more general and the other trying to be more specfic. I also see no contradiction here. Therefore the removing of images is at least for my first 3 reverts clearly against that policy. It's also far beyond my understanding how keeping of a promotional image of icon size that has been there for years can be disruptive as claimed by Kww. And sorry, even with the best will, I completely fail to assume good faith here in HWs actions. I am still new here, so I may not know if there is a common practice, a unwritten rule so to say, regarding such cases but obvioulsy this must be discussed on the policy page and with a more authoritative result. It's just funny if then somebody writes at ANI that policies are not law, tells about consensus and discussion - haha, even guidelines are usally treated as policy and therefore ultimately law, especially when it comes to deletion. That's the difference between theory and reality. Very disappointing. Just see this case, come on we are talking he about a few crappy images with little to no chance that there will ever somebody come and demand to remove them because they are his property. Endless discussions of many A4 pages are required here just because some people obviously hate to have porn topics on Wikipedia. I can understand their point and I even agree to it to some degree. But it's not the way to go, to kill stuff through the backdoor by over strictly interpreting policies and weighting every single word just to have something deleted. Wikipedia would only have to declare itself as beeing purely educational and the problem would be solved. Btw. on commons is also only educational material allowed. An educational Wikpedia would only keep articles about porn start that have appeared in TV or genereally mainstream media. It would also remove any pornographic movies that have not had any presence in mainstream media. Furthermore the wole entertainment area would be affected, so no excessive description of single episodes of series and so on. But as long as there is no BIG consensus that Wikipedia is focussed that way certain people should accept the presence of material that the don't want to see in an encyclopedia instead of beeing incivil and deleting on sight. But currently a lot of articles describing the orginal spirit of Wikipedia are pointless now. So for example if I can easily delete something why should I even try to improve it first? It is my very impression that certain problems that have got publicity especially regarding BLP and porn are still reckless (ab-)used as general justification for a extreme deletion attitude. Testales (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Natural bust - Playboy Playmates

Should the Playboy Playmate infobox include a "natural bust" field? Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 05:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you have valid point here, if it is not included in Template:Infobox adult female then it surely should also not be in Template:Infobox Playboy Playmate. It's certainly of interesst and even more for subjects where the first template is used. But I guess the point not to include it was proably because it is in most cases hard to find RS that prove them as beeing natural or just been a bit "pimped". Therefore if that field is empty because of no source here, it may lead to wrong conclusions and judging from pictures will probably be declared as WP:OR, even if there are say scars are clearly visible. I would like to know what the result here was in earlier discussions as I guess to have such a field is probably not a revolutionary new idea. Testales (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion for the Adult Female infobox is here. Dismas|^(talk) 20:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Biased application of 'notability' criteria at AfDs

Epbr123, an Admin in this project who claims to be one of the chief architects of "notability" criteria as defined here, is making "Delete" votes at five current AfDs on Japanese Pink films which do pass those criteria. Though these are films, rather than BLPs, all of them were awarded at the Pink Grand Prix, the major award in the genre-- some of them garnering than one award. They also pass WP:NOTFILM due to being notable (award-winning) films in the filmographies of notable personnel. The AfDs are:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Older Office Lady: Using Her Seductive Tongue‎
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Widow * Second Wife: Real Sucking Engulfing a Rare Utensil‎
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife Taxi: Crowded with Big Tits‎
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fascinating Woman: The Temptation of Creampie‎
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cousin White Paper: Aching Mature Lewdness‎

Though he has apparently created dozens of less reliably-sourced sub-stubs on less-notable US hardcore porn subjects which pass criteria he claims to have created, Epbr123 has justified his Delete votes with his personal opinion that there are "too many" such articles, a justification which indicates he has tainted other AfDs under the watch of this project, and the notability guidelines themselves, with his own personal bias of an artificial limit to the coverage of notable subjects. This should be of concern to all members at this project, as it compromises NPOV, OR, and makes coverage here clearly biased. Dekkappai (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• The AfD's have closed, but the issue remains: Is the "Award" criterion proof of notability or not? If even one of the creators of the notability guideline here believes it's optional, depending on whether the !voter is interested in the subject or not-- of what value is it? Dekkappai (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Count me as one of the people that believe the winner of an award category is first place, not the "everyone is a winner" idea because it is ordered numerically like the national spelling bee. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • US porn awards are given out by the dozen for any variation on a sex act they can dream up. The awards in question here give awards to the ten top releases of the year. This is standard format in Japanese cinema, such as the Yokohama Film Festival. Who are you to say these are invalid? Dekkappai (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm just a guy who interprets winner as first place. The film festival article you list just shows one winner for best film so I am not sure why you presented that as evidence that each movie ranked is a winner being standard format in Japanese cinema awards. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• And how do you interpret "Ten Best" releases of the year? Look at the edit history of the Yokohama Film Festival and see who started it. I'll let you know when I've filled it out. I guess what bothers me is the dishonesty. Hundreds of poorly-sourced sub-stubs created for subjects who won something like "Best Anal Scene", vote to Delete well-sourced, well-made Japanese films in a notable genre because you, personally, don't agree with Japanese award criteria, and then pose as "NPOV". Dekkappai (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• I interpret it like a beauty pageant like Miss America. The winner is Miss America. Not the runner-ups. Not the top 10. Number 10, Miss Texas, may well be notable as Miss Texas but not for simply being the 10th place winner. Some Pink Prize 6th place film may be notable due to coverage by reliable sources, but not simply for being 6th place. I haven't voted in the AfDs because I can not (or do not want to try to) evaluate the sources so I don't know why you are pointing at me "personally" as being dishonest and for voting delete. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Miss America does not have a "Best Ten" releases of the year section. It's a pageant with one winner. The Pink Grand Prix, and the Yokohama Film Festival are different. There is not one winner. It's not a contest. They have ten (10) slots for the "Ten Best" films. There are no runners-up, there are 10 best films... Why try to eliminate the other nine? The award says Ten. It's Ten. Dekkappai (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Pink film / pornographic film

I've been removing the "Pornographic film" categories from Pink film articles because I see that Russ Meyer's films are not categorized this way. The Pink films are in the same style as his. "Pink film" is already a category, and redundant or inappropriate to the "Pornographic film" categories depending on your definitions. Another editor has reverted one of these removals. Thoughts? Dekkappai (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

To quote from the article in question, Office Lady Rope Slave, "It was released on DVD in Japan on December 21, 2007, as part of Geneon's tenth wave of Nikkatsu Roman porno series" (emphasis mine). Common sense would suggest that a film described as such is a pornographic film. Is there something that I am missing here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

See, we're getting into cross-cultural confusion here again. One of the directors-- I'll have to look it up-- borrowed the word "porno" for the series. He'd heard it in America. But they're not porn, they're softcore erotica. Many sources tell this. I'll cite it later if needed. But even if they WERE porn, Pink film would be a sub-category. Dekkappai (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Defining pornography is always a problem, I guess, particularly if there's an attempt to differentiate it from erotica. But at least two of Meyer's films are classified as "sexploitation films" which is a subcategory of pornographic films, and another is classified as a sex comedy film, a subcategory of erotic films (which I think this project encompasses also). The main pink film article describes them as pornographic films in the first sentence of the lede, and the category pink films is a subcategory of pornographic films; having them in the pornographic category in addition to the pink film category therefore seems redundant. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, technically, Roman porno is not pink. Pink film is only released by indie studios through their own distribution system, and made on a fixed budget. Roman porno was made by Nikkatsu-- mainstream major studio-- with comparable budgets & distributing. Dekkappai (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

So, if I can summarize the discussion so far, pink films are "not porn" but they are a subcategory of porn and so it is redundant to categorize them as pornographic films, and also, Office Lady Rope Slave, which is classified as a pink film, is not actually a pink film, it is Roman porno film which is not pornographic despite the name. Is that about it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Delicious, I've said nothing "original" or surprising to anyone who knows anything about the subject. How about you learn something about it before you start attempting to impose your opinion? Dekkappai (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not expressed an opinion, much less tried to impose one. All I have done is pointed out the inconsistencies in what is being said here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think to tell what is porn and what not is not that difficult. Bascially it comes down to whether there is a certain focus on genitals and whether actual sexual intercourse happens: In Ukraine, the national expert commission on public moral protection derived criteria on how to distinguish pornography from erotica. According to the order, pornography is a detailed image of coitus and naked genitals for sexual stimulation without any artistic or educating aims. I think this definition is not limited to the Ukraine, in other countries it is usually also decided that way whether a movie can be on regular TV or not. Aside of special cases like extreme violence. Testales (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I get the impression Delicious thinks I'm "trying to pull a fast one" here, or something. I don't see what he thinks I'm gaining or not... If I may summarize: A pink film is either pornographic, or it's not. Since we've got many pink film articles, if pink film is pornographic, then categorizing them as both pink and pornographic is redundant. If it's not pornographic, then categorizing them as "pornographic" is... am I missing something here? Dekkappai (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as Testales' point about genitals: No, they are never shown in a pink film. Pink films are strictly softcore. Dekkappai (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not redundant to include an article in both Category:1980s pornographic films and Category:Pink films [3]. These films are obviously softcore porn, as you yourself have called them in many Pink film-related articles. Removing the "Pornographic film" categories isn't going to make them any safer from deletion. Epbr123 (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a different matter, 1980s pornographic films being a subcategory. I was remarking above on categorizing as both Pornographic films and Pink films, when the latter is a subcategory of the former - I'm pretty sure there's a guideline that one should not have the parent category on an article which has a subcategory, is there not? Maybe that problem could be partly solved by making a category 1980s pink films and having that be a subcategory of 1980s pornographic films and of Pink films. On erotica/pornography, maybe that issue has been settled in the Ukraine (I see problems with that expert commission's definition and am curious as to their expertise and biases), but in the US it's an open question as far as I know and often depends on who's defining the terms. I believe pornography doesn't have to involve actual sexual intercourse, need not be detailed, isn't necessarily for sexual stimulation, and may have artistic and/or educating aims. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Everyone interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of porn should read this

Please see my addition at the top of the "Usefull links" section of the main project page. And please act upon it. If you want to improve a porn-related page, look it up on Google Books and add referenced information. It's as simple as that. If you look at our B and C-class articles, especially famous porn films and porn studios, you will see that over the course of a few weeks I managed to add a plethora of referenced info from google books. Imagine what we could achieve if we all did this. Willy turner (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a good help for Golden Age stars. Besides, I want to say there's a big lack of sources retined absolutely reliable for actors in activity: for American actors only two sites, XBiz.com and AINews.com, are retained reliable and only a couple of other sites are retained "partially" reliable, it's really hard getting and reporting informations retained acceptable in this standard. This is not a criticism, it's a request for help finding/suggesting new web-resources to work better and improve porn-biographies. Cavarrone 25 April 2011

Is TMZ a useable source?

I stumbled about TMZ once again as it was cited by many other source including some that are usually regarded as "reliable". For example see this or more generally this. The New York Times had even a dedicated article about it. I think that's quite a lot of reputation and I just saw that there is also a Wikipedia article. I have also read some WP:RSN discussions regarding this but the outcome is not very clear. It appears that it can be accepted for pure celebrity news especially when other RS quote TMZ. So what's the opinion here? Testales (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability criterion

Would winning an XBIZ Award consitute proof of notability? Is there a precedent here? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus in the past has been that any award in Category:Pornographic film awards counts towards WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That may have been a past consensus, but it's not the current one. I'm pretty sure that was changed, and for good reason. That's why the text of WP:PORNBIO says "may apply" with regard to the category; there's a big difference between "well-known" and "notable" here. I don't see how the XBIZ awards qualify; they're mostly self-publicized. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the removal of the Playboy criteria, there hasn't actually been any change to WP:PORNBIO since April 2009. Whether WP:PORNBIO reflects current consensus is another matter. Epbr123 (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Current version: Has won a well-known award such as an AVN Award. (See Category:Pornographic film awards or Category:Film awards for other awards which may apply.)
• April 28, 2009: Has won a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards
  

There was extensive discussion on this, in various locations, a few months back, spinning out of the interminable list of gay porn actors debates. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The XBIZ Award has just recently been challenged for notability and there seem still to be consensus that it is notable. There was a discussion about a specific gay award and the article for another one has been deleted. Apart from that the recent discussions[4][5] about the role of awards in WP:PORNBIO lead to no substantive change[6]. Your comparison of the old and the current statement only proves this.Testales (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Testales is correct. Those discussions had no conclusive outcome (1, 2, 3), and I doubt the person who added the "may apply" part [7] had the intention of making the guideline more restrictive. Epbr123 (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there is an adage in the porn industry which goes: "The XBIZ Awards is what the AVN Awards wishes it was". Glenn Francis (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)