Talk:Point of view pornography

Point of view pornography received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 January 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Gonzo pornography.

Pornography Mid‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

POV

If I got it correctly POV is 1st person pornography. Please verify X-Rated Critics Organization gives out awards for POV movies. Note that there is several separate categories for gonzo pornography. I'm quite sure that they are two different things. -Easyas12c 20:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I find it's closely related to Gonzo, at least in terms Gonzo pornography is defined here at wikipedia: "This filming style often tries to create the illusion of placing the viewer directly into the scenes. Gonzo puts the camera right into the action -- often with one or more of the participants both filming and performing sex acts -- unlike conventional porn, which usually depicts less-intense sexuality."

I think the difference is that POV can be of high quality and doesn't have to be amateurish at all. The films are shot in a way that makes the watcher feel (s)he is part of the action, but the scenes can be shot in a studio environment by experienced cameramen, instead of the pornographic actor himself. In return gonzo pornography seems to be just pornographic gonzo. -Easyas12c 09:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At present, I feel someone (with better english and knoledge than me) should place a note linking each article (stub) to the other, describing what they have in common, and also a note (more important) describing the differences, and how can somebody classify a film in one category or other.

Links and Stub message

'This pornography-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.'

- hmm... "expanding" might not be the right word here...

...and the links, are those really necessary?

Be brave. --Easyas12c 01:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. As you're not a registered user I'll remove the links. One of them doesn't even work. How ever I do understand that such links are given pointing to an example. But of course it is hard to know which example would be most appropriate. Anyone willing to shoot POV pornography for Wikimedia Commons? ;-) Just joking. How ever I do believe that the article can be improved in some ways. Maybe having a peer review would be a good idea. -Easyas12c 01:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

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

The result of this discussion was to merge. One week, unanimous. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Hamedori and Gonzo pornography be merged into this article. Hamedori is a Japanese term that means pretty much the same thing, and Gonzo pornography is a very similar shooting style. Any opposition? Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Appears a logical merge. I often see merges done without proper copyright attribution so, as a possibly unnecessary prophylactic: if carried out, please see the mandatory attribution instructions at WP:MERGETEXT.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seconded. Definitely important. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks sensible to me. doomgaze (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image

I have included File:Labret phallic coddling.jpg to improve the quality of the article. Any opinions about other photographs we could use? There is also File:Footjob.jpg which could be used as well, and possibly others. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting the picture, since it is unclear whether the person depicted wants it used here, a well as the person's age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.209.61.107 (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]