Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Image:BonbonXXX.png

Image:BonbonXXX.png

J. D. Redding 16:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-nude pornography/photography

There's an article for non-nude photography that used to be titled non-nude pornography, and was moved by unilateral action of one editor in 2006. Most photography is non-nude, and this title is completely useless. The controversy over whether calling it pornography is a misnomer should be addressed, but clearly the article should be moved back to non-nude pornography, don't you think? The article as it still exists defines the work to be intended for arousal and masturbation, and is similiar to soft-core porn. -- AvatarMN (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the question shouldn't be what term we think make sense, but what the genre is actually most notably called. Mdwh (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And what is the answer to that question? I have a hard time believing people most commonly call it by a term that's unuseful, as it describes most photography and not just the kind in question. "Non-nude pornography" was what the article was called by everyone who edited it until one person came along and said that's an oxymoron. -- AvatarMN (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No page-move is incontrovertible on Wikipedia. My suggestion would be to talk about this on the article's Talk page, and establish notability of the former title there (using actual references, too). Wait a couple weeks. If there is no reply, move the article back to its old name. One editor's assumption that the title is an oxymoron won't be supported by the evidence, and admins will back you up on it. - Tim1965 (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Pornography participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 21:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Pornography participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Template discussion

Just want to draw everyone's attention to something I've started at Template_talk:Female_adult_bio#Orientation? as I'm having serious doubts about why we have Orientation as one of the fields in the Adult Bio box. Tabercil (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Image guideline rationale

The "guideline" that images should not be "explicit" including showing the bust. The rationale given is the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, however, the effect of that act would have equal application to the images themselves on Commons. Although many "explicit" images may not be tasteful lead images, and including a plethora of "explicit" images in an article may not be particularly encyclopedic, omitting or cropping images to comply with this "guideline" is inconsistent with WP:NOTCENSORED. Do we have a ruling from the Foundation's Counsel regarding this issue?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• There's no ruling that I'm aware of... but I think it's less a question of 2257 than using only what's needed and nothing more. In general the primary reason for having an image on the article is to identify the actress. Using an image where there is nudity, even if it's just toplessness, I think distracts from that purpose. Tabercil (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I can agree with that, I don't really have any issue with which is the better image at Nadia Nyce where this issue arose. I do, however, have concerns about a project guideline that asserts 2257 when that's neither an issue - most images aren't on enwiki they are commons and that's something everyone seems pretty firm on (commonly comes up in copyright issues due to the non-compatibility of GFDL with most CC licenses) - nor within the scope of what should be in a WikiProject guideline. I think the references to 2257 by Jimbo at WP:PORN harken back to most images being on enwiki and ignore the fact that 2257 is just as applicable to any number of other pages where images have been in place for quite some time, including several of the pages noted there. In the absence of a ruling by foundation counsel, it seems inappropriate for any part of the Project to assert legal reasons for doing or not doing things, even a policy or guideline or VP page, for a WikiProject to do so seems to be far beyond its authority. Could we agree to change the "guideline" to one based on the purpose of the photo rather than one based on 2257 and remove the references to 2257?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Easy enough to do... all that needs to be done is to trim the part that refers to 2257. The paragraph before states my argument well enough I think. Tabercil (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I was wondering if you could help a discussion on wikipedia:list of sexual positions over a photo that's just gone up there. Essentially, I'm of the opinion that it most probably violates 18 USC 2257 and Florida 847 and thought that people on this project would probably have run into this sort of problem before and know the legal position. Many thanks, 92.41.162.115 (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Lists of porn stars

List of African-American porn stars, List of Asian porn stars, List of British porn stars and List of Hispanic porn stars are currently classic examples of lists that should be categories. ie these lists contain no more information than the category they are within. They could be improved if they were turned into sortable tables with details such as date of birth, place of birth, year of first film, awards won etc. Unless someone starts adding more information to these pages so they are not just a list of names; I suggest all these pages be nominated for deletion. I dont mean to sound like i'm laying down the law, but unless drastic improvements are made in a matter of weeks I will nominate them, and it is highly likely they will all be deleted. Willy turner (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and nominate them. When I created List of African-American porn stars, it included well-known stars who didn't have Wikipedia articles. I thought that was okay per WP:CLN#Advantages of lists #14. Then I was told that if a star wasn't notable enough to have a WP bio, she wasn't notable enough to be in the list. So you're right; the list is nothing more than the category. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Pornography

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I never knew William Shatner had anything to do with pornography ;-) --Rosenzweig (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Pirates II

The DVD for Pirates II just came out and the WP page for it is pretty light Pirates_II:_Stagnetti's_Revenge might be a good candidate for an overhaul. Gkleinman (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC).

Abbywinters.com

Until a few minutes ago, the article on the porn website Abbywinters.com was in Category:Photographers. I've since fixed that; however, while the article was purporting to be about a photographer, it underwent a set of suspicious-looking edits that drew my attention: see its recent editing history. In brief, after my restoration of much deleted material (or my unthinking reintroduction of rightly deleted junk), much of the article is now a description of the website, "sourced" to the website itself (i.e. from direct observation, or "OR" if you will), and much of the rest is about some criticism of it in somebody's blog. The whole affair looks eminently AfD-worthy to me, but I know nothing about the relative noteworthiness of porn websites. Neither that article nor this project page is not on my watchlist; it's all yours. -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Award in major magazine

Is winning Penthouse pet of the month (or similar e.g. Playboy Playmate of the month) generally considered an award in a major magazine? My gut feeling is it isn't (pet of the year, yeah sure) but would appreciate feedback from those more familiar with pornography related issues. The reason I ask is because it came up in the Ginger Jolie where some people assert she's notable for being pet of the month, but so far I'm not seeing evidence of notability from coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Back, a couple years at least, when User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. and others were hashing out the criteria for WP:PORNBIO, before it got folded into WP:PEOPLE, the inclusion criteria specifically stated that Playmate and Pet of the Month were both awards from major magazines. If I'm not mistaken, Hustler Honey was included in the earlier versions of the criteria. There was even some discussion about why only American magazines were being used as examples. I can't find that version of the criteria now because I think, if I'm looking at this correctly, that page was deleted before the redirect to WP:PEOPLE was put in. (See my second response below) And I seem to recall that when PORNBIO got folded into PEOPLE, the specific awards/magazines got edited out when the criteria was copied over to PEOPLE. As for why, I have no idea. I wasn't able to find any discussion about leaving them out during the transition.

As for my own opinion, Playmate and Pet are rather different awards. Playmate is always (going from memory, I've had a subscription and have collected back issues for years) bestowed on an unknown model that the magazine finds themselves (either when photographers find them or when women send in their photos) or on models who may have just done some local modeling. Playmates sometimes go on to do some acting, bikini modeling and such, or for the most part go to school to become nurses, photographers, real estate agents, etc. and hardly ever go on to do hardcore pornography. I can think of only two that have done this. Teri Weigel being one and the second name escapes me right now. So for the most part, being a Playmate isn't just a modeling gig. Pet on the other hand is aimed more at women who want to be or already are in the pornography business. The number of women who go into hardcore porn after being Pet is far greater. For them it seems to be more of a jumping off point to get into the porn business. And seems to be more like just another modeling gig. For instance, Silvia Saint had already won an AVN Award (1997) before she was Pet of the Month (1998).

And finally, being a Playmate has a scientific impact. At least three studies [1], [2], [3] have been done using the measurements of Playmates for their data sets.

If you'd like to go over some of the past Playmate AFDs, I've started putting together a collection here. Dismas|^(talk) 07:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is where the "of the Month" criteria was removed from the guideline without discussion. Dismas|^(talk) 05:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me as though AnonEMouse was just copyeditting the text, rather than changing the criteria. I think he assumed people would know that a "feature of the month" would count as a magazine award. The criteria should probably be made more clearer. Epbr123 (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not doubting his intentions. But it introduced a grey area as to whether "of the Month" is enough. Dismas|^(talk) 12:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I intend to clarify the wording of WP:PORNBIO to indicate that "of the Month" is enough. Could people here first confirm there is consensus for this? Epbr123 (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I think we need to establish which sources are reliable for porn star articles. I've listed some of the most commonly used sources below, so if we can gain consensus on whether each one is reliable, maybe we can write a guideline at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography page.

1. Interviews at lukeisback.com
2. Cited material at lukeisback.com, eg. [4] (currently used in the Jenna Jameson FA)
3. AVN.com
4. AInews.com
5. XBiz.com
6. Interviews at Rogreviews.com, eg. [5]
7. Biographical info at iafd.com, eg. [6]
8. Adultdvdempire.com
9. Adultfyi.com, eg. [7]
10. XFanz.com, eg. [8]
11. Excaliburfilms.com, eg. [9]
12. Eros-ny.com
13. Pornvalleynews.com
14. Gamelink.com, eg. [10]

Epbr123 (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Could you give me some time to think about this and respond? I was away in Berlin for the Venus show when you posted this question and I'm surprised no one else from the project has chimed in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, sorry. Your opinion would be very valuable. Epbr123 (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I missed seeing this on my watchlist (at least not until Morbid chimed in), but I'll do some thinking on it as well... some of them are clearly (IMO) reliable (e.g., AVN which I believe at least one mainstream source has called the trade magazine) and others are less so. Tabercil (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. There's a lot there to chew over so I'll take this in chunks, so expect multiple posts on the topic.

• AVN is reliable period since it's the leading industry trade magazine. The New York Times called it "the Variety of the US porn industry" ([11])
• XBiz and AInews look like they aim to be similar to AVN in that they focus on the news, so I'd say they can be considered reliable.
• IAFD should be treated exactly the same as IMDB.
• Eros-NY is an e-zine (as stated here). As such they'd be the same as reliable as any other ezine such as Salon. (And speaking of Eros, has anyone checked to see if the links to it still work?)
• Gamelink & Excalibur are highly suspect in my eyes, if only because I don't readily see where they'd get their info from...
• Xfanz is owned by the same people as XBiz, so I'm tempted to say it'd be reliable. What do we use this for? Just the news stories??

More as I have a chance to mull over the other sites. Tabercil (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to do it in chunks too.

• First, from interacting with both staff, I would say XBIZ and by extension XFanz is more reliable than AVN. XBIZ clearly denotes whenever something is a press release and its own articles are not just mere fluff. I trust the writers there more than AVN.
• My problem with AVN, especially when it comes to notability issues, is that they write articles on and review movies from companies in which they take advertisement dollars from, which sometimes leads to COI and independence issues. I also view their staff as being less competent (prone to much more turnover) than XBIZ. Their awards are also subject to politics.
• I help run IAFD so I won't offer an opinion on its reliability. People can submit additions and corrections (but it should be adequately sourced if there's a conflict) but we have to approve it and sometimes we go to 2257 information on hand to confirm things like birthdate and height. The addition of movies into the database relies on existing reviews so numbers of DVDs that are actually underreported. We also once checked what IMDB is doing by having a fake movie for a performer in the database and sure enough, it showed up in IMDB quickly after.
• Luke Ford is simply unacceptable. Too many accusations of selective editing and publishing of interviews from the subject. I wouldn't trust any cited sources from him without checking it myself and then I would cite to that source rather than him.
• Gamelink, Excalibur, Eros-NY, ADEmpire are vendor sites that I don't consider reliable.
• I know Rog personally and now he doesn't edit out his interview unless the subject asks him to not publish something. He's technically self-published but his interviews tend not to be controversial either.
• Gene Ross (Adultfyi) and Gram Ponante are both former managing editors of AVN which lends to the theory that they are experts under WP:SPS. However, I don't view Gene as being any more reliable than Luke but Gram is okay even though he's not as funny as he thinks he is.
• AINEWs, I don't know Steve Nelson (the owner) that well but their site seems to be mostly press releases. If it came down to an issue of notability, I would not accept AINews.
• AdultDVDTalk blog interviews. I know the interviewer well and he's actually a published music critic in his normal job. He's too lazy to edit his interviews and it's mostly fluff anyway, so there's not much controversy in using them.
• Pornvalley news is a self-published blog with no editorial oversight run by a guy named Ray.
• The Naughty American of course is run by Naughty America. I wouldn't take their articles too seriously but they rarely post anything controversial either.

Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Huh. I didn't know that about IAFD checking back to 2257 records. How often do you do that, always/sometimes/rarely?? Because if you're doing it frequently enough, then the birth date and height info for starlets caught up in the post-2257 records could be considered accurate, and that would be from when... post 1995? Tabercil (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

When we mention Luke Ford, there are several possibilities we have to consider: the person by the same name, the people who own and run the original lukeford.com site, and the new owner of lukeisback.com. The last I'll state as being probably the most reliable; the interviews in XCitement magazine (which counts as a published source) are all conducted by Cindi Loftus and she's the new owner of lukeisback.com. Tabercil (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• The most frequent reason for IAFD to go to the 2257 records is to confirm a death by looking up a real name. Sometimes 2257s are used to confirm birthdates since actresses like to shave a couple of years here and there. Movie reviewers get 2257 from companies in case they want to publish screenshots and stills for their reviews. If I don't have something to check against (since I don't get everything), I ask other reviewers to confirm. All variations of "Luke Ford" from Scott Fayner to Luke Ford to Cindi Loftus are unreliable for me. Cindi's work with xcitement has editorial oversight, but not her work as the fake luke ford. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

With regards to Morbid's comments about AVN's conflict of interest, it's no different from any other commercial news organization. The New York Times accepts advertising for its paper, and I'd say the majority of its ads will be from local businesses; said businesses can also potentially be the focus of a news story by the Times. The same is especially true for narrowly focuses media; if you pick a copy of Guitar World, you'll find most of the ads within will be from guitar companies and closely related firms (e.g., string manufacturers, effects makers). Ideally advertising and editorial in those organizations are two separate entities within the same organization. That same conflict is why Consumer Reports doesn't accept advertising - so there's no appearance of bias. Tabercil (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I don't get much into the hardcore scene, I'll basically just defer to you guys on that and go with whatever you think is reliable. Having said that though, I'd like to hear (read) what you have to say about Caskets on Parade. While looking into the source for Debbie Boostrom's death date, I decided to look through their FAQ and such. They seem to make a real effort in order to find sources for their info. Dismas|^(talk) 13:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one more which I was just reminded of: University of Chicago's Playmate listing. I've been in contact with the maintainer of the list in the past. They get their info from the magazine itself or from official sources (in the case of upcoming Playmates) such as the Playboy Channel. Everything that I've double checked with my own collection has been correct. Dismas|^(talk) 14:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either are reliable. The Playmate listing site is self published, and WP:V says self published sources can never be used in biographical articles. The Caskets on Parade disclaimer page says "Some of the content of this website is fictional, made up, outlandishly wrong, total hooie, Bravo Sierra; if you are using this site for academic research, please confirm all data from two or more additional references.". Epbr123 (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I also want to list some foreign trade journals that I sometimes cite to with respect to European pornography. As far as I know they are legitimate publications, (not self-published). I'll amend with the links later.

• machomedia.hu (Hungarian), machomedia.net (English) - Hungarian trade journal
• xstarnews - France trade journal
• German Adult News - not sure if that's the main German trade journal or not
• Deltadivenere - Italian trade journal
• AVN Europe - Based out of Budapest but no archives

I'm not sure if there's a Spain trade journal or Czech one (although Czech Business Weekly regularly reports on porn) but you would think there would be since Barcelona and Prague are centers of productions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think those are all reliable. Epbr123 (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well with regards to AVN Europe, I took a look on the Internet Archive but there doesn't appear to be anything there. I've sent AVN Europe an email just now asking about archives... let's see what they say on that topic. Tabercil (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

How about Honestpornreviews.com, which is apparently written by "a team of experienced professional writers"? Epbr123 (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about those guys at all. They seem to have biographies on porn star affiliates (those who have a website and are part of their affiliate network). The biographies themselves are shallow and look like they're written by publicists. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

For Consideration XCritic Page

Wanted to submit to the WP Pornography Team that we believe XCritic has finally broken through the threshold of WPNotable. Our current top 10 list of women porn directors has been picked up and covered by AVN and XBiz. This on top of our 9K reviews, porn star blogs and steady stream of news. Because of conflict of interest, of course we can not create the page, nor would we. So we submit to the Project our inclusion for your consideration. Thanks. Gkleinman (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC).

• I'm still not sure about the standalone notability yet. However, information about the XCritic spinoff should be mentioned in the DVDTalk article. I'm surprised no one has done that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You're more thank welcome to add it to the DVD Talk article... Although the site is officially run by "Chris Thorne" so putting it on another bio page wouldn't be ideal. I do think that we've hit standalone notability. Aside from the preponderance of reviews, Penny Flame & Stoya Blogs, we are seen as a 'trusted source' for reviews and news. Gkleinman (talk)

-- Also XCritic has been thanked in the credits of a few films including Not Bewitched XXX also the cover for The Sunny Experiemnt has a quote from XCritic. We're a voting member of the XRCO and Don is voting for the AVN awards. That doesn't include any of the nods/etc which existed when the adult content that is now XCritic was part of DVD Talk...Gkleinman (talk)

Jane's Guide has now reviewed XCritic as 'Quality and Original'. Since they are considered an authority in the space does that tip the scale for getting a page? Jane's Guide Review of XCritic Gkleinman (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC).

removal of image

Please visit Ramba (comics) and weigh in. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson's autobiography

Anybody with a copy of her autobiography? There were inserted claims into the Nikki Tyler[12] and Jesse Jane[13] articles that the two had a relationship according to the autobiography. I certainly don't remember this claim from the book. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I got the book and I just spent the last 45 minutes scanning through it looking for Jesse's name - nada. Tabercil (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Look familiar to anyone?

Do these two images look familiar to anyone here? The editor that uploaded them says that they're original compositions but they've been unusually combative about the whole affair. Dismas|^(talk) 05:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well try this (via here) for the first one. Second image is based oh Susan's Playboy centrefold, as can be seen here. Tabercil (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:PORNBIO

I'd like to propose we change criteria 1 of WP:PORNBIO to:

Has won or often been nominated for a notable award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards and Category:Film awards, or being the centrefold in the major pornographic magazine Playboy.

This would bring it in line with the criteria for "Any biography", which states "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them."

It would also mean that Penthouse and Playgirl centrefolds are no longer automatically notable. There are currently too many one-sentence stubs on Penthouse Pets, which are unlikely to ever be expanded, and there's the potential for dozens more to be made. On the other hand, Playboy centrefolds tend to be more notable, and most currently have articles of a reasonable length.

I'd also like to propose we remove criteria 3. Appearing as an extra in mainstream films or music videos, or appearing on porn documentaries or talk shows that often feature porn stars, shouldn't be enough to establish notability. Epbr123 (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there anybody "automatically" writing these dangerous articles? All they have to believe is that the individual is "interesting," see notability (people), and in theory they're in. Xophorus (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep criteria 3. As long as criteria 3 can be verified by a reliable source (beyond tertiary sources like imdb for example or the primary source itself), I feel these crossover appearances are signs of notability in the porn world. As for criteria 1, I see the adult awards as being cheap and nominations as being even cheaper since the winners are rarely reported by independent reliable sources. If I had it my way, only winners should be notable since the awards are of low notability in general. Porn doesn't need a separate Susan Lucci qualifier, hell... Susan Lucci did not even need a multiple nominations qualifier for WP:BIO since she had so many RS discussing her perennial nominations. However, regarding to your proposal, I'm concerned about the rewording of serious nominee to simply often nominated for a notable award, especially when it comes to awards that have laundry list nominations like FAME, that seems to have at least 20 per category. All you need is two categories to qualify for criteria 1 under that scenario. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind only winners being notable, although we would have to get the "Any biography" criteria altered. If we can't get consensus on removing nominations fom the criteria, maybe the wording "Has won or often been a serious nominee for a notable award" would solve the FAME issue. We could change criteria 3 to say "Has had multiple appearances in notable mainstream media, verified by reliable secondary sources". Epbr123 (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That's Criterion Three, not Criteria 3, see the Chicago Manual, and any dictionary. Once again Wikipedia is getting involved in excising what it simply doesn't like, for reasons too easy to relate to conventional morality. Consensus is being used to manufacture authority that doesn't exist here, everything is done by consensus, not actual authority. You require a porn star to have some kind of verifiability, yet you deny, shall we say, the organs of the top of the industry. It is common sense that, for different reasons, all of the following should be allowed as verifiability: Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler. Hustler is in fact more involved with awarding industry awards than either of the other two. Yet I don't see them being mentioned here. Is that because they're too naughty? This is porn we're talking about. See my related remarks at Notability (people). What we need is not more deletion, but more inspection: firstly, if the article is too slight and remains so, then it becomes something that should be cleaned up, so what, that's why it's called work. But creating an editorial policy that is going to keep an article out for theoretical reasons is just the empowering of anti-creativity, shutting somebody up before they speak. Secondly, there would be a need for a study of each of the major publications, and studios, of porn; this would lead to greater understanding of who is doing what. Do you think Playboy is the most reliable publication? It's good enough, it has lots of good characteristics, but as I pointed out, Hustler knows more about industry standards. Xophorus (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of dropping Criterion 3, it definitely seems to me that were Wikipedia to drop it, Wikipedia would be acting AGAINST the function of a good research instrument. It's just wrong-headed to disallow something for the reasons given. It is also against the stated purpose of Wikipedia, which is to make these connections possible. Xophorus (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with nominations has been hashed out before - see here for the most recent discussion that I'm aware of. As you said, the "Any biography" criteria clearly says "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." (emphasis added) so we pretty much have to have some acknowledgment of nominations as a source of notability in the criteria. And the problem with the "multiple appearances" criteria that you're proposing is that it's vague ("how many nominations are we talking about?") and begs number creep (see WP:BIGNUMBER on that count). Mind you, the "Any biography" criteria is distressing vague on that count. As for trimming out Penthouse & Playboy as specific criteria and clarifying it to be Playboy centerfold specific, I don't see any objections on that count, though we might have to spell out the "why" behind Playboy centerfold being notable in and of itself via a note at the bottom of WP:BIO. Mind you, once we have a rough consensus here, I'd still want to put a notice on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) to give the wider community a chance to comment. Tabercil (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, what's the distinction between a "major" and "minor" magazine, and why would Penthouse be excluded? Zithan (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Judging by our current articles, models who have been Playboy Playmates tend to have received more media coverage than those who have been Penthouse Pets. We have many stub articles on Penthouse Pets, but most Playboy Playmate articles have enough sources to be of a decent length. The Penthouse Pet criteria also doesn't seem to have the backing of the wider Wikipedia community and has often been ignored in recent AfDs. Epbr123 (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This is to miss an important point about notability (people), which is that being interesting is alone reason to include someone - don't blame me that that is there. "Interesting" is perhaps an ephemeral quality, but if we are talking about something in which a picture is worth a thousand words, creating a policy that does away with an entry for purely literary reasons would be the beginning of keeping the whole subject out of the encyclopedia. Xophorus (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey folks, we have to have a subject that allows a person to be included because she has "interesting" breasts, or even a merely "interesting" boob job, or he ejaculates further than the next guy. You are going to require they get an award for this, before you allow it to be written about? All you have to do is see that is true, and you know why you read the article. Believe it, there are going to be people who want to know more about the different boob jobs that Pamela Anderson or Jenna Jameson had - that is quite sufficient reason to list them.Xophorus (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, there are differences between the different magazines, that inform the whole nature of the industry. Playboy is more popular, partly because it is less pornographic, and because it hooks into many other popular industries: in other words, it is less pornographic in more than one way. There are more editors here who seem to like it - is it because you are not really researching this field? Once again, Wikipedia is wrongfully being made of consensus, not authority. Hustler tends to have far more to say about industry standards, vis-s-vis awards, so you can't exclude Hustler, if you want to require "awards" as a criterion for notability. The very reason to include Penthouse is that it is less commercial than Playboy, and less political than Hustler. There are other magazines that should perhaps be included, to keep the picture as complete as is needed. I have arrived on the porn scene to find I think that a bunch of prudes are using casuistry to keep out something distasteful to themselves. Xophorus (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is another aspect to pornography that no one has mentioned, and that is the way it dovetails with mainstream medicine: both positively and negatively. There are evidently a variety of types of boob jobs; this could be made possible to research. There are exercises that cause men to ejaculate further, and over-the-counter vitamins that cause them to ejaculate more: if this information could be found in an at least somewhat reliable source, a lot of mail fraud could be averted. That's not Wikipedia's job to avert, but it is a reason someone might look it up here. Again, if it is a plausible reason to consult Wikipedia, it is probably a plausible reason to allow an article about it. Xophorus (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Support the initial reason for this putting this on to poll. Toughening the criteria for inclusion would be a good idea, just as that of all the lgbt articles should do too. Creating so many pages, not to mention with consequent multi-issues on each page, defeats the encyclopedic point. It ends up reading an dictionary/encyclopedia of pornography. Which is fine on someone else's personal website or weblog, but wikipedia's is not for such purporses. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter." Or as a compromise, maybe all these short articles can be tagged on to the same article with the relevant descriptive line in tow. Lihaas (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Is media coverage going to be the only criteria? For example, how would one distinguish from a notable PORNBIO from another country (where Playboy is not popular) say, in China, where the media is conservative and hesistant in reporting such controversial topics such as pornography?Zithan (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Here again I point out that the criterion of "interesting" is stated to be ALONE reason enough to include something, see Notability (persons).If it is "interesting" by porn industry standards, or for any other reason, it should be included. Face it, the situation is vague, and requires taste. You can't make taste a policy matter, or this subject is outa here.Xophorus (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't write an article on someone if they don't have media coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That is sheer nonsense. This is a classified topic, it by definition doesn't get media coverage. Also, this is bad research. If somebody makes a revolution in strip dancing, and chooses not to go on film, we are to exclude her because she doesn't participate in media we bless? Too much policy is being created here, just let the editors write, and let another editor edit it. Xophorus (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified. My query is that mainstream newspapers and magazines usually do not cover porn in countries where the media is still conservative. I can quote several Asian nations where porn actors are iconic, but newspapers and magazines are not ready to give them their 15 seconds of fame. So how do we determine reliability of sources for these cases? Sorry for asking again, I just need to get this cleared up so that systemic bias is not inadvertently added in to the criteria. Zithan (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If someone doesn't know the first thing about what you're talking about, it might not be your fault. Create another article, in which they can find out what they may need to know. Figuring out how to this is where Wikipedia editors show their creativity. Let the Chinese spoonfeed themselves when they are adult enough for solid food. We can show the horse the water, but it's not our fault if it won't drink.Xophorus (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way we can we distinguish the iconic Asian porn actors from the regular ones? If there is, how can we write neutral, reliable articles on them if they are never mentioned in newspapers, books, etc. Epbr123 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Requiring media coverage is a way to reduce the research down, not build the subject up. Xophorus (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I will try and research on it. Meanwhile, I'm ok with the ammended draft. Regards, Zithan (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the point of criterion 3; if they're being mentioned multiple times in mainstream media, wouldn't that be a result of either a) already satisfying criteria 1 and 2, or b) being notable for some other reason (e.g. WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:CREATIVE)? Chewyrunt (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point... Tabercil (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Naw... Criteria 3 is a lesser standard than Criteria 1 of WP:ENTERTAINER. Crossover roles are usually minor due to porn's stigma although they are presumably heavily reported on in porn press. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a revised proposal, based on what seems to be the middle-ground of opinions here so far.

Criteria 1: Has won or often been a serious nominee for a notable award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards and Category:Film awards, or has been the centerfold in the major pornographic magazine Playboy.

Criteria 3: Has had multiple appearances in notable mainstream media, verified by reliable secondary sources.

There are WP:BIGNUMBER problems with criteria 1, but there will be problems with whatever crirteria we choose. If Zithan finds a way of recognising top foreign performers, that can be added to the criteria. Epbr123 (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

On criteria 3, is the last clause necessary if verification (by reliable secondary sources) is implicitly required anyway on any assertion of notability? I just want to somehow emphasise the point that relying on tertiary sources like IMDB and the primary sources are not enough to establish that they are notable mainstream appearances. Perhaps the explanation can be put in the footnotes of WP:BIO? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is required anywhere that the assertion of notability has to be verified by secondary sources. We never insist on award wins being verified by secondary sources. The award has to be notable, but the winning of the award doesn't have to be. Likewise, the mainstream media has to be notable, but the appearance in the mainstream media doesn't have to be notable, according to the current criteria. Epbr123 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"Policy" is needed as to when to write "criteria" and when to write "criterion." I think most of this discussion is really about what to exclude, not what should be included, and I think that most of what is being said here is an effort to subvert the present editorial policy that notability (people) allows for "interesting" to alone be a criterion for inclusion. A situation of unending Revert Wars is being set up by all this discussion, especially given that what we are talking about is not even something the allowability of which is generally conceded. It is going to be altogether too easy to say "that isn't allowed!" Pornography requires a liberal attitude! Either we are liberal about this, or we are not. If we are not, we are going to have.... emasculated porn! Who wants that? Xophorus (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose these criteria which are unnecessarily more strict than those for other actors/entertainers, for no good reason that I can discern except censorship or advancing Deletionism. It seems to me this sub-section of WP:N can just be deleted and "pornographic actor" rolled into "actor" at WP:ENTERTAINER. WP:NOTPAPER, so loosen the rules and let the editors flourish. - Draeco (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC) (It should be known that I am Xophorus's adopter, but these opinions are my own.)

WP:PORNBIO is actually less strict than WP:ENTERTAINER. Few porn stars have had significant roles in multiple notable productions. If WP:PORNBIO was replaced by WP:ENTERTAINER, the Playboy Playmates and porn stars with minor roles in mainstream media would no longer be automatically notable. Epbr123 (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I disagree, but basically on the semantics of what's "notable", the fact that criterion 2 (large fan base) should cover centerfolds, and centerfolds are models not actors so they don't fall under this category anyway. - Draeco (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually if WP:PORNBIO was rolled into entertainer a thousand or so performers would pass notability. There's a lot of them (CJ Bennet, Davia Ardell, Angela D'Angelo, and a few hundred guys that nobody on the project could name) who would pass the standard of "prolific" and had long careers, but don't really have any coverage to show for it. No awards, so they wouldn't pass any criteria of PORNBIO at the present time. Horrorshowj (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. Where is the WP:V for this definition of notability? Where are the reliable sources giving this particular definition of notability? It looks to me like Epbr123 pulled some fine-sounding prose out his arse, and everyone is standing around rubbing their chins deciding on how to polish this turd... Is there the slightest chance that "consensus" will ever realize that all the thousands of words used at WP to create its own definition of "notability" are... Original Research? Well, "consensus" might, if rule-making weren't so much damned fun... and so much easier than actually... um... putting together an encyclopedia. Dekkappai (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I'm not a big fan of eliminating nominees, since Crit 1 is usually the only one that holds up at AFD. Even general pretty frequently the coverage is somehow not quite significant enough for some people. Percentage wise, I still think that puts porn in the lowest percentage of notability for any of the major entertainment categories. I wouldn't have any objections to restricting scenes with more than 3 people listed per nomination though.Horrorshowj (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you be in favour of restricting the magazine centrefold criteria to Playboy? Epbr123 (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Mixed feelings on that one. I have no objection to it being the only one for the US, but I'm concerned about the systemic bias that induces by not containing an allowance for magazines that hold equal stature in other countries. For that matter are all versions of Playboy considered to meet the standard? There are afik at least a half dozen foreign language editions with their own Playmates.Horrorshowj (talk) 08:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a summary of the opinions so far on the awards criteria.

Wins only	Multiple noms	One nomination	No criteria
Morbidthoughts	Epbr123	Horrorshowj	Xophorus
	Lihaas		Draeco
	Zithan

It seems clear that consensus is against the current "one nomination" criteria. Epbr123 (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Tabercil argued against changing the nominations also.Horrorshowj (talk) 08:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, Draeco argued opposed to the entire proposal. Your tally should be either 1-3-3-1 or 1-3-2-2, neither of which is the clear consensus against that your chart indicates.Horrorshowj (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Tabercil just pointed out the problems with the opposal, rather than actually opposing it. Draeco wants WP:PORNBIO to be rolled into WP:ENTERTAINER, so supports multiple nominations. Epbr123 (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him to clarify that, because I don't believe you are correct on his intentions.Horrorshowj (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I do not support "no criteria", I am opposed to Original Research-based notability guidelines. I see no citations of a secondary-source general definition of notability or of one specific to this topic. I see only baseless speculation by editors. "Consensus" says that Playboy is notable and Penthouse is not? So what? What do reliable, secondary sources on the topic say? This kind of groundless speculation by anonymous editors is properly not allowed in articles, and I do not feel that those same editors suddenly become authorities on any and all topics when they are creating guidelines for what subjects are to be kept and which are removed from an "encyclopedia" of the "sum of human knowledge". I believe the "consensus" being sought here-- no matter the outcome-- is based entirely on Original Research, not in Verifiable Reliable Sources. I therefore do not wish to !vote in this notability discussion, and am removing my name from the chart. Dekkappai (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I am always "no criteria," I merely argued a default to WP:ENTERTAINER because that is how the chips would fall out if WP:PORNBIO disappeared. I have changed the chart accordingly. - Draeco (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Break and modified proposal

Sorry this was getting long. I'd like to propose that we make nominations subject to the following restrictions:

• Award must have a maximum of two names per nominee.

*If award is fan voted, only winning is sufficient for this criterium. (i.e FAME, Urban Choice awards)

My preference is still for single noms obviously, but if Tabercil's position isn't what I thought then it's a moot point. If we do go to multiple noms, then I'd still recommend adding the first standard, but probably junking the second. This cleans up a lot of microstubs whose only claim is nomination(s) for "Best Gang Bang". Horrorshowj (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the first restriction, but what's the rationale behind the second? Epbr123 (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Although, just to point out a possible problem with the first restriction, if a female and ten males are nominated for Best Gang Bang, doesn't the female deserve some credit for this. Epbr123 (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • They list those as the woman and x number of guys. I'm not sure how that will work out at AfD, although I don't think that particular nuance is going to affect any article that is otherwise salvageable.Horrorshowj (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The same problem will also apply to all the female nominees for Best Double Penetration Sex Scene. There are quite a high number of award nominations that are for lone females and multiple males. Epbr123 (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
      • How about instead limiting award nominations to those that aren't for scenes? We never really know which people earned the scene its nomination; it could have been one of the performers, the director, the writer, the cameraman, etc. Epbr123 (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
        • It's only the performers that are named in the nomination. With gonzo being the largest style of filming, and features decreasing in number yearly, I think scenes need to be kept in. I'm interested in reducing the number of names per nominee to two because, if there are 9 people in your "Best Group Scene-All Girl" or what have you, then the individual performer is only actually .11 of a nomination. Two may seem arbitrary, but I figure .5 rounds up to one. It only eliminates 4 categories and about 6 addition nominations. It gives us a big proportion of the whole, but removes the ones that are really hard to justify to anyone outside the project.Horrorshowj (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry... was largely AFK this weekend so I didn't have a chance to drop by and see the discussion. With regards to nominations, I feel we have to make allowance for nominations being a criteria for notability, simply because the general criteria for notability under the "Any Biography" section clearly states:

"The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." (emphasis mine)

Having said that, I would place myself in the "Multiple noms" category of that straw poll that Epbr123 did a bit ago. Further, I would require that those nominations be from discrete instances. If Jane Doe gets 5 AVN nominations in one year but nothing in any other year, that's not enough; if she gets one nomination from AVN and one nomination from XRCO in the same year, or a nomination from AVN in different years, then she's notable. Tabercil (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Ok. I withdraw my opposition to changing the criteria to multiple nominations. I really don't want to write in the discrete requirement though. I don't see what we gain by it as a whole, and it seems like it would be a pain at AfD. That and I'm wondering how many articles the changes we're already looking at are going to impact. Horrorshowj (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Regarding the impacted of these changes, remember that the only articles that are affected by WP:PORNBIO are stubs and poorly sourced articles. Any article worth keeping will pass WP:N. Epbr123 (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Bigger issue is that I just don't see the point. If someone gets nominated for best scene by both XRCO and AVN, how is that somehow a greater indicator of notability than 3 distinct XRCO nominations for the same year? I agree the first one should pass, but I don't see why the second one should fail. If it's the same people and film, but different categories do you really think we should have to check if it's the same scene or if they had two scenes together? Further, I would argue that there are some single year combos that are more impressive than some multi-year ones. I think this adds a complication to evaluating the crit at afd that we don't really gain anything from. Horrorshowj (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
        • How about the solution to this is that the multiple nominations have to be across years (not award specific) since notability is not supposed to be temporary. That way we eliminate flashes in the pan. Truly bright one-year flashes are covered as winners. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm not keen on nominations having to be across years. I agree with Horrorshowj that some single year nomination combos are more impressive than some multi-year ones. Also, the fact that notability is not temporary actually supports the notability of flashes in the pan, rather than the other way round. Epbr123 (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
            • Well the reason why I would have nominations be from different organizations and/or from different years is to try and address the sheer length of how many nominees there seem to be in the categories today as well as the explosion in the number of categories. For instance, for the F.A.M.E. awards for 2008, there were 8 nominees in each category. For the 2009 AVN Best Actress awards, there are 15 nominees, and the PDF file that lists everything runs 55 pages. Given the sheer breadth of potentially nominated people, it might not be an exaggeration to say that that all the currently active porn stars could end up being nominated for something in today's AVN environment. As for Horrorshowj's requirement that "Award must have a maximum of two names per nominee" from earlier, how many awards period will have just 2 nominees? Heck, look at the People's Choice Awards - if you click on their website and go to vote, there are three names to choose from in each category. Tabercil (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
              • I think Horrorshowj meant that each nomination should have a maximum of two names (e.g., a Best Couple nomination will have two names), rather than each award having a maximum of two nominees. Epbr123 (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
                • Ah. But if we're moving to multiple year notability (or multiple awards) then what are the odds that a given person would have multiple nominations such as this? And besides, if we're qualifying the nominations in this fashion (at most two names), should we be doing the same to the award itself? Personally, I think this is trimming the field down too far unnecessarily. Tabercil (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
                  • There's Karina Kay for starters. I'm sure she isn't the only article with the sole claim of multiple group scenes and nothing else in the article. She's just the most recent one I've seen at AfD. Effectively we are trimming those award categories from meeting notability, just wording it in a way that is easy to apply. WRT your second point, the number of nominees was the reason we switched to multiple awards. How do the numbers become better by adding the additional "discrete" requirement? You're still talking about two award nomination with 16-30 total nominees for the two awards regardless of if we require they be from different organizations or years. "Discrete instance" I think would be applied too much like "significant coverage" at AfD. It sounds precise in theory, but in application lets just say it gets awfully flexible in definition. I really don't want to have the arguments about whether the two awards are truly "discrete" or not. Horrorshowj (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
                    • I've decided to support Horrorshowj's "two name" proposal, but the same should also apply to the award winners. Epbr123 (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay... let's see what we have for a proposal. Remember folks, whatever we come up with will get a second going-over on the Talk:Notability page before it replaces PORNBIO, so I think it'd be best if we keep the language simple and straight-forward without too much "legalese":

• Has won a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards, or has received nominations in multiple years.
  • Note that scene-specific nominations should be limited to those featuring two participants.
• Is a Playboy Playmate.
• Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame or XRCO Hall of Fame.
• Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.

I've modified the second criteria to make explicit the Hall of Fames as being a criteria for notability. So what does everyone think? Tabercil (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Will we also be limiting award wins to those with two participants? Also, I think "well-known award" should be changed to "notable award". Do Playboy Playmates need to be mentioned? Epbr123 (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Woops... missed the Playmate criteria. I've edited my original post above to insert this as line #2. Tabercil (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's any sort of consensus in favor of the additional restriction of multiple years. Scene specific criteria has to read a maximimum of two participants. Best Solo being the obvious exception, but there are a few others that only list one name per nominee. I think we should be tying it to the number of names on the nomination to avoid bean counting.Horrorshowj (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Well that's why I put it in black'n'white... to get feedback folks. Tabercil (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a revised proposal, taking into account the feedback received.

• Has won a notable award, is a member of a notable hall of fame, or has received multiple nominations for a notable award. Scene-specific awards and nominations must be for scenes featuring no more than two participants.
• Is a Playboy Playmate.
• Has made a unique contribution to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature.
• Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.

I think the hall of fame criteria was better suited to the awards section, and I've removed the "multiple year" criteria, as there isn't consensus for this yet. Epbr123 (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the two performer limit, especially on award winners. Using the gangbang example for a group award, how is the object of the gangbang any less notable than the winner of some one on one award? I understand the idea that the meatpuppets are not necessarily notable but a hard cap is not what I would want and neither would I want people dissecting the scene awards by role importance in an AFD. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems the only thing we have consensus on now is the multiple nomination criteria. Shall we just go ahead with that? Epbr123 (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. I think it would be a good idea to use the award language currently used to describe the qualifying awards to avoid lawyering over a perceived change in meaning. What the current language means is generally understood, and "well-known" is probably a better threshold than "notable" due to the latter's meaning in WP. I really prefer Tabercil's hall of fame description for much the same reason.Horrorshowj (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason I think "notable" may be better than "well-known" is that it's less subjective, as it can simply be determined by whether or not the award has a Wikipedia article. Although, as the current "well-known" wording hasn't caused any problems so far, it's probably not a big issue. Epbr123 (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

True, but that also means that stacking enough votes to kill either the AVN or XRCO award articles renders much of the articles in the project non-notable. Unfortunately we've already seen several editors who feel strongly opposed enough to the subject matter being covered at all to make the effort. "Well-known" may be slightly more subjective, but it's also a less vulnerable threshold. Since there haven't been any complaints about "Well-known" thus far, I think it would be a tactical mistake to make the change on our part.Horrorshowj (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think having the Hall of Fame criteria tied into the "unique contributions" makes more sense than having it at the awards line, as many of the people in the Halls of Fame are generally the builders and shapers of porn. And I do think we'd be best to simply go with multiple nominations for now; as Horrorshowj points out, while there seems to be a loose consensus to tighten this, we don't have anything firm. Tabercil (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

2nd break

Okay... let's see if we can't put this to bed... I still think the Hall of Fame stip works better in the "unique contributions" line, thus my retaining it there. Here's what it looks like we have for criteria:

• Has won a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards, or has received nominations in multiple years.
• Is a Playboy Playmate.
• Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent.
• Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.

Any objections to my putting this up at WP:BIO for broader discussion?

No objections, although I'm still not sure how being in a Hall of Fame is a unique contribution to a specific genre. Epbr123 (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just out of interest, I've been looking through our current articles and I estimate that the new awards criteria would lead to the deletion of around 20 articles, and the removal of the Penthouse Pet criteria would lead to the deletion of around 40. Epbr123 (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like the first criteria amended to "has received serious nominations..." to avoid the FAME nomination vs. FAME finalist award dilemna. I'd even add a footnote explaining why. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I can see what you're after here, but I think that might lead to complications down the road. I want the language to be as clean and unambiguous as possible to avoid future wrangling over what it's supposed to mean. And like it or not "serious" is a loaded word. Why not take serious out, but leave the footnote about FAME's nominations/finalists setup? Tabercil (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that footnote should be in, or a footnote that states. For awards with multiple rounds of nominations, only the finalists count. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought the consensus was at multiple nominations, not the additional requirement that they be in multiple years. Second the final ballot clarification. Other than that no objections, I agree with the hall of fame being a unique contribution instead of an award.Horrorshowj (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've now decided to support Tabercil's proposal of nominations in multiple years. We really need to cut down the number of porn stub articles whose only content is a short list of nominations. I think we can now put this up to WT:BIO. Epbr123 (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking to WT:BIO

Are there any further objections before the proposal is put up at WP:BIO? Epbr123 (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No objections and there already seems to be a conversation on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), except that editors there seem to want to loosen the criteria. However the criteria proposed seem ridiculous like basing notability on the number of postings on a message forum or a chat board. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Kink.com content dispute

There's a bit of a content dispute going on with the Kink.com article, the discussion being at Talk:Kink.com. Generally, the dispute seems to be around an editor who doesn't quite seem to get the whole idea of "Wikipedia is not censored", etc. More specifically, this editor added a section on an alleged assault at Kink.com that is only backed up by a reference to a blog post, which in turn references only another blog and a forum. I doubt this holds up under the criteria for inclusion under WP:VERIFY, especially when it comes to contentious claims. Since I'm on the other side of a content dispute with this editor, I'm reluctant to revert this section without being sure I'm on solid ground. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Shaun Costello

Not sure if he is notable. There has been an article about him for two years, which just has been deleted as "personal attack page", which in my view was at least the wrong reason. I haven't checked the history, but the last version looked at first glance like an autobiography. Please see User talk:Shaun Costello. — Sebastian 19:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

From my recollection (from over a year ago), it certainly wasn't an attack page. Costello's edits to the page apparently changed some unfair wording. His biggest claim to fame in porn comes from directing the original Forced Entry (1972) — remade as Forced Entry (1975) — and Water Power (wrongly credited to Gerard Damiano). The sources could have been higher quality. There was at least a semi-reliable media source about him, but I can't find it on Google anymore. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The phrase 'personal attack page' might be too strong, but the deleted article on Shaun Costello had no references at all. Recently User:Shaun Costello applied at WP:AFC to have a new article made, but it was rejected due to lack of any sources. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's often a problem with autobiographic articles. According to our policies, it all boils down to how notable Shaun is. But allow me to write my personal opinion: Two weeks ago, we (in the US) had a national day of personal history (I forget the exact name). NPR broadcast stories by people who experienced history themselves. (The German term for that is "de:Zeitzeuge".) I loved it! When we now are so lucky to have somebody who has first hand experience, I think an argument can be made for WP:IAR and invite him to participate here. This guy could be a boon for this project! But it's up to you. If your interested, I can restore this article, or at least move it to a subpage of this project, so you can discuss what best to do with it. (I already asked the deleter if they has any objections.) Of course, as he's naturally not an experienced editor, it would require some of you to work together with him, and keep our articles up to standard. It's up to you guys. — Sebastian 06:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The article was speedy deleted as "attack page or negative unsourced biography of a living person" (this is the standard text of the G10 speedy criterium). In this case, it was the negative unsourced WP:BLP aspect that caused the deletion. The page was over two years old, and was tagged (correctly) as "unreferenced" since December 2006, i.e. for two whole years. We should under no circumstances go around claiming that people are porn actors and directors without providing any (quite literally) sources. There was ample time to do so anyway. WP:BLP is a very clear policy on this. Things like autobio, notability, ... had nothing to do with the deletion.

I have nothing against a recreation of the page, provided that it is backed up in the article by reliable, secondary sources. A new unsourced page will be deleted on sight. Fram (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Appearances in Playboy special editions

Does anyone else have any issues with this section of the Playboy Playmate (and other PB models) bios? I don't really see the point. The women have signed a contract with Playboy to do a bunch of modeling, so why do we have to document every instance? It seems to border on WP:TRIVIA to me as well as WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:FANCRUFT, and WP:OLIST. The special editions aren't individually notable and they are just a book full of pictures. There's very little, if any, text in them.

Examples can be found at most any one of the recent Playmate's/model's articles such as Heather Kozar and Cindy Margolis. Margolis was never a Playmate, so in this instance it's just a list of all her particular credits with one modeling contract. We wouldn't have a list of every Guess? advertisement that Anna Nicole Smith was part of or every Victoria's Secret catalog that Heidi Klum appeared in. So why this? Dismas|^(talk) 05:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It seems like listcruft to me. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that it is listcruft. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Also agree. These entries should go the way of the dodo... Valrith (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, trivial listcruft. Nothing special about special editions. Epbr123 (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding to the band - listcruft. Tabercil (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree per all of the above Ched (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so what would be the best way to take care of this? I thought about making a request for a bot to handle it but I think that it could easily be done in a couple hours by a couple people. Especially considering that not every Playmate has been in a Special Edition. Additionally, the models listed at List of Playboy NSS models aren't always Playmates and some have their own articles. And is there any point in trying to contact the anon IP that has been working on these sections? So, thoughts? Dismas|^(talk) 17:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right that two or three people could turn this out in no time flat. Let's just get a couple volunteers (I could be one) and go after it... Valrith (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we want to split it up by decade or semi-decade? begins to wonder if there's a term for a span of five years, a.k.a. a semi-decade Dismas|^(talk) 18:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just been through the Playmates from the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. Epbr123 (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done the Playmates from 1990-2009... Valrith (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I go to a party for a couple hours and you guys have all the work done when I get back! Thanks! Now I feel a little bad having suggested something and then everyone else did the work.  :-( --Dismas|^(talk) 04:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This cleanup was the right thing to do. The only issue I noticed (I have a few Playmate pages watchlisted) is that some legit film credits may have been swept up in this otherwise well-done effort. I'm looking specifically at Kimberly Evenson (diff), where I fully agree the PB vids should have been deleted, but the IMDB-esque film credits are the type typical of any actress; was deleting these the intent? Townlake (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that filmographies should not exist in Wikipedia. Period. There are plenty of sites whose sole purpose is to track those minutiae, and copying those lists seems pointless. Valrith (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I partially disagree with you, Valrith. Porn filmographies should not be present or at the most limited to titles that are themselves notable. Which, due to the small number of notable porn films, would leave most filmographies with just one or two entries and thus too small for even me to think that they should be included. Mainstream notable films where the person played a named role, I feel should be listed, unless again the list is only a film or two long. Dismas|^(talk) 19:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Roughies" revisited, and "Nudie-cuties"

If anyone is interested in writing on the historical American porn genres of "Nudie-cuties" and "Roughies" (I'm pretty sure Russ Meyer worked in both genres early in his career), I've just come across this, perhaps, useful quote in my Japanese studies. "Coincidentally, rise of the eroductions occurred almost parallel with that of the American "nudie-cuties" (i.e., harmless naturist and peekaboo flicks), the more innocent forerunners of the "roughies". Roughies lived up to their nickname by sexploiting not only teasy nudity but - almost without exception - sadism and rape, usually of women. Main difference between Japanese and American genres was the latter's filmmakers could eventually reveal unlimited amounts of pubic hair/genitalia..." {{cite journal |last=Fentone|first=Steve|year=1998|title=A Rip of the Flesh: The Japanese 'Pink Film' Cycle|journal=She|volume=2|issue=11|pages=p.5}}

I am just signing off here so this discussion can be properly archived. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah-- no one else seems to care about these. I might get around to working on them eventually. For now, take it away. Dekkappai (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Justine Joli image

There's an edit war going on at the Justine Joli article over choice of images to illustrate the article. Since only a few editors are involved, I figure that simply having a poll on the two available images will create a rough consensus and diffuse the issue. The poll is at Talk:Justine_Joli#Poll:_Justine_Joli_image. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiporno

A user would like to amend the adult bio templates to add wikiporno to the list of links in the infobox. Please discuss at the talk page of the template. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Youhot

Not familiar with your project but a bit of random browsing landed me on the above site which looks like advertising to me but perhaps someone on this project could check it out. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems it's been deleted. I'd say, problem solved. Dismas|^(talk) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

C-class articles

The option of giving an article a C-class rating was missing from our assessment page. I have added it. Just out of interest, why was it missing? Was C-class introduced fairly recently? We only have 9 articles with a C rating. Some of these were added by me, and some were already rated C. I strongly suspect there may be quite a few articles that are currently rated Start or B which should be C. Please bear in mind when rating articles in future that C is an option, and if you come accross a start or B article, consider whether it might better be classed as C. Also can someone please provide good examples of C-class articles on the assessment page, with the reasons why they are C, cos thinking about it makes my head hurt. Cheers. Willy turner (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Alison Angel

I wanted to request some advice. The Alison Angel page was started and deleted a couple times over the last couple years because it was blatant advertising. I tried unsuccesfully to start a page several months ago but did not know enough about Wikipedia's guidelines. She is now retired so the advertising is not as big of a concern but I am running into potential notability concerns. She had a fanbase, high scores from reviewers, and was a nominee for a couple awards. The notability guidelines per WP:PORNBIO are surprisingly lacking when it comes to internet only performers so I'm not sure if she another attempt at an article would be OK. Any thoughts from anyone familiar with this project?Cptnono (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There was a total of 3 AfD discussions with consensus that determined she was not notable while she was active.[14][15][16] It's unlikely that her notability will improve in retirement. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability was not the primary concern for the first two. I feel the third was slightly a knee-jerk reaction to the advertising for her pay site and poor wiki style. She was a nominee for a XRCO Award. This meets the criteria of WP:PORNBIO. I'm not sure if this is enough though with most of the info out there is in blogs and pay sites.Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, all three AfD consensus were based on lack of notability. Further, she never had an XRCO nomination and her XBIZ nomination was considered and rejected in the third AfD. Any recreated article will likely be speedy deleted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I certainly appreciate your thoughts on it regardless if I agree with your take on the previous AfD and notability in general. It looks like the second one was more about notability concerns while the others were concerns with advertising and sources also. I think those two might be taken care of if done properly. If it does get made I'm sure other editors will chime in but I thought it would be best to check here first. I'll double check my sources on the XRCO. If it is just XBiz I understand that you don't think it is notable but it is on the list as well. That might be something you will want to take up with the guidelines.Cptnono (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also thought it was important to mention that the admin who deleted thought it could be OK if worked on but could not allow it as it originally done. In the deletion discussions several other editors voted for keep as well. I know it isn't a democracy but it does show that some editors think there is a place for the article.Cptnono (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

PORNBIO

The proposal on amending PORNBIO has now been put up on WT:BIO#PORNBIO to see if a general consensus can be reached. I believe Epbr was going to do it but I don't know what happened to him. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith that you believe only a win makes notability instead of multiple nominations in multiple years (per the project page) but the timing is interesting with the discussion above. The proposal also limits notability and cuts out several mediums. I don't understand how a minor league team can have an article but an adult actress cannot only focus on online distribution. Follow-up: Looks like you "voted" for wins only while consensus was multiple.Cptnono (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Airi & Meiri

Airi & Meiri is up for deletion, and from the discussion it appears that editors supporting deletion are not allowing the article to be improved? 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

AlexNewArtBot

Okay, so I want to create a New Article alert for the project using the User:AlexNewArtBot. It requires some key words for it to look for while it's running. So... any thoughts of what phrases it should be looking for? What I have so far is:

• adult actor
• adult actress
• adult entertainment
• adult film
• adult movie
• porn
• porn film
• porn movie
• porn star
• pornography
• pornographic actor
• pornographic actress
• pornographic film
• pornographic movie
• Hustler
• Playboy
• Penthouse

Any others words or phrases that should be added to an alert? Tabercil (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This would be very usefull. Can the bot search for articles within certain categories, as well as looking for key words? Is it not possible for it to find any article within Category:Pornography, or its subcategories, or the subcategories subcategories etc? If not then id suggest the only words you would need would be; porn, porno, pornography, pornographic, adult film, adult video, and pornstar. The 3 magazines arent necessary as any porn-related article mentioning them would inevitably mention one of the other words. Willy turner (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily, Willy. There are several dozen (hundred?) Playboy Playmate articles that don't mention the word "porn" or any of its variants. As well as Playboy Cybergirls, etc. Dismas|^(talk) 14:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Well including the 3 mags I cant think of anything else we'd need. Build the Bot! Willy turner (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the list with what I think is sensible additions. Consider adding some big names porn production studios like Vivid and BangBros etc... Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I've created the rules page.... hopefully I set the dang thing up right <G>. The rules can be seen at User:AlexNewArtBot/PornFeedName. Please contact me if you think they need some tweaking... Tabercil (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Right... seems to be coming up with some results... here's the page where's it's putting the results: User:AlexNewArtBot/PornFeedNameSearchResult. Tabercil (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is set up correctly. The first two links that I've looked at Amanda Brooks and William Hall (actor) don't seem to have anything to do with the porn industry. Dismas|^(talk) 03:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah.... the terms need tweaking as it was picking up too many non-adult actors and actresses. I've changed them so hopefully they'll now work. Besides, all it does it point out possible links - it doesn't actually tag them as being part of the Porn Project IIRC. Tabercil (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Measurements

Measurements for female porn stars should be eliminated from their biographies, as it is sexist. A double standard exists as well as the fact that this information is not encyclopedic but rather, voyeuristic. We should remove the measurement section from the female porn star template.--Farbotron (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Their career is based pretty much entirely on what they look like. I don't see why their measurements wouldn't be in their articles. And also, scientific studies have been done using Playboy Playmate's physical data as their data-set. (I can dig up the links if you like) The numbers are of value. Dismas|^(talk) 07:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am addressing the sexism inherent in having female measurements. This is not objective or static data such as their age. Conceivably, their measurements could change month to month. That is why I call this information voyeuristic, listed for entertainment. I also referred to a double standard since the male measurements are not displayed. The fact that scientific studies have been done on playmate measurements is irrelevant to the points I previously listed. There could be scientific studies done on the measurements of other sets of women--for example, politicians-- but their measurements are not posted. There are also specific guidelines for articles on living people:"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives"From Biographies_of_living_persons Lastly, I understand how their measurements could come up in the body of their articles, but this is an argument about the female porn star template.--Farbotron (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you also against the template being able to display the measurement of a penis? Or is this just about the women for which the template is used? Dismas|^(talk) 07:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Displaying penis measurements might eliminate the double standard, but wouldn't change some other issues. Just because the porn industry might categorize/advertise people based on their measurements, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia should imitate that in the template. Posting measurements of sexualized body parts for either men or women seems dehumanizing, as it treats them like a cut of meat, or specs for a car. If that is how they are treated in the industry, it should be in the body of the article, not the template. I also doubt the information is even necessary--scientists are not going to use Wikipedia data sets for any serious study, unless the study is about Wikipedia itself.--Farbotron (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your argument seems primarily based on your issues with the subject matter. They make their living off their bodies, primarily their appearance. It makes sense for their measurements to be listed. The closest template to them would seem to be athletes, which lists height and weight. Bodybuilder's list both competition and offseason weights, while Jay Cutler (bodybuilder) lists measurements for just about everything. It's generally pretty easy to verify the measurements of female performers that can pass WP:PORNBIO. Horrorshowj (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my issues are primarily with sexist subject matter. Not pornography as a whole. Most of the time, listing athlete measurements does not sexualize them. This situation is different. Why should Wikipedia templates rate subjects sexually? men or women. The logic behind posting their measurements is flawed. If the careers of porn stars are exclusively based on their looks, why not other film actors? Why not list the measurements for all film stars? I think it is because non-porn actors are unfairly admired, while porn actors are dehumanized. And so their measurements are listed, because they're lower on the hierarchy. Why perpetuate this thinking? --Farbotron (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Penthouse as a source

Is a Penthouse Pet's profile in the magazine considered a reliable source? I'm thinking specifically of birth dates. Dismas|^(talk) 20:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... good question. I'm trying to remember how they do up the birth dates in Penthouse. IIRC, the bio info for the Playboy Playmates is done up by the model themselves and is, IMO, reliable (though this has been contested by others). How does Penthouse do up the profiles? Tabercil (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of File:Lolicon Sample.png

An editor has brought up a concern that this image is illegal and should be deleted. Please come participate in the discussion. Thank you. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this interesting and important issue to our attention. Fortunately it seems that the discussions linked to have reached the consensus that it isnt child porn. IMHO It goes without saying that suggesting this completely non-sexual image which features no nudity is illegal was a tad bizzare. Willy turner (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

PORNBIO

An editor is proposing to rollback PORNBIO to where it was because he feels there was not enough consensus to support the current iteration. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Andrea Dworkin

I have reassessed this article and found issues with the referencing which need to be addressed if the article is to retain GA status. The reassessment comments are at Talk:Andrea Dworkin/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Vanessa Blue

An editor recently added Vanessa Blue's real name to her biography because it was included in two recent articles about a lawsuit to which she was a party. Per Talk:Vanessa Blue, Blue has asked that her name not be included in the article. Is there any policy concerning respect for the subject's wishes, especially in an industry in which performers choose to use pseudonyms? Does WP:BLPNAME suggest we should keep Blue's name out of the article, or does WP:WELLKNOWN suggest we keep it in? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think it's well-known, and her wishes, combined with BLPNAME, should be enough to warrant the removal. (Which has been done). Tabercil (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the BLPNAME rationale. BLPNAME is meant to apply to third parties from a bio subject or protect private people involved in some notable event. You might be able to argue that Vanessa Blue falls under WP:NPF but I don't know what the threshold for relatively unknown is. We now have more than one source xbiz and that college paper. Although the adultbizlaw cite is merely a reprint of the XBIZ article, it is her attorney's (and romantic partner) website. If we treat Michael Fattarosi as her representative (and he legally is), her real name is being spread about on the internet and it is verifiable according to wikipedia standards. The horse is out of the barn. Perhaps this issue should be discussed in the BLP Noticeboards to get some non-porn people weighing in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Tabercil (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Priya Rai needs recognization

Dwanyewest (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Priya Rai (porn star) should be moved to Priya Rai

Identification of persons

hello,

Anyone can tell me if this girl is actress Ruby Knox or another Ruby ? Thank you. Okki (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And, is this one is Mikayla Mendez (see her profile at IAFD) ? Okki (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Adult Entertainment Expo

I created the categories "AVN Adult Entertainment Expo" on Commons, and I started to put our old photos. I also began to import photos from this site, but many models have not been identified. For exemple, I think this actress is Gianna Michaels, but I'm not sure. If somebody can help me for the rest, it will be very appreciated. Okki (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC) ps: sorry for my really poor english.

Yes, the actress is Gianna Michaels. Dismas|^(talk) 04:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there enough articles on this subject to justify an Outline of pornography?

By the way, here's a relevant discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

Now back to the question...

The Transhumanist 01:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Between actors/actresses, directors, web sites, fetishes, etc. I think it might be a pretty good idea. Dismas|^(talk) 01:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea? Yes. Possible to do in a non-recent-centric/U.S./Anglophone-biased manner? Maybe, but difficult... Dekkappai (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Having taken time to read what a WP-outline is, I strike the above. If, as I now understand it, it outlines the subject area, while showing WP's coverage, then it actually could point out areas that need work and areas that are already well-covered. So it would actually help to counter the unintentional bias that creeps in when we just write about what we know about or have interest in. So, sure, it's a good idea. Dekkappai (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I started wondering how this would keep from turning into a list of huge lists, for example, listing porn stars. I took a look at Outline of painting and Outline of film and both list a few famous painters and film stars but I wasn't able to find how they whittled all the painters/actors down to just a dozen or so. Is there some discussion that I haven't found yet that deals with what should/should not be included in such a list? Dismas|^(talk) 03:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that Outline of painting is God-awful... "Famous painters" lists not one non-European? "Styles of painting" all European from the last 100 years or so? "History of painting"-- Western & Chinese only? The only thing I learn is that there must be an editor with interest in China in the Painting project. The Outline of film is a little better, but the actors? "David Tennant..." Just a random list... directors? "Alfred Hitchcock - Stanley Kubrick - Steven Spielberg - Mani Ratnam" I can name a dozen tippy-top, majors left out without even breaking a sweat... Where are Ozu? Kurosawa? John Ford? D.W. Griffith? Orson Welles? Renoir? Fritz Lang?... No, no... this is not promising at all. Looks like pure Original Research. The kind that creeps up whenever these sorts of home-made things are made (by which I mean guidelines, definitions of "notability", and all the other Wiki-rules). No, mark me against it now... Dekkappai (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Useful external links: lukeisback.com

There is some question about what is meant by "LukeIsBack.com [24] - last site of Luke Ford, porn's gossip columnist. The "stars" section sometimes lists quite a lot of information about a performer, and the photos are GFDL under User:Tabercil/Luke Ford permission; however the photos are not linked to the stars article, and often require image search, as described above. Luke no longer operates the website. As a blog site, it cannot be used as a reliable source, except for its audio and video interviews. However, the site does provide links to some reliable sources." That it's listed under useful links suggests it is at least sometimes a useful site to use, and it appears the "stars" section, photos, audio and video interviews, and external links are generally good while the blog content may not be. Where does a printed interview on the site fall in terms of reliability?

Also, lukeford.com is a different site with some identical content... but possibly there are different views on it? Шизомби (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

All iterations of lukeford's sites, lukeisback.com (cindi loftus), lukeford.net (luke ford), lukeford.com (ryan rayzer) fall under WP:SPS. They can not be used to verify biographies of third parties. This includes the Luke's interviews since he's been accused many times of editing the interviews to make a subject look bad. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the description on the project page to reflect that his audio and video interviews are not reliable unless they can be authenticated by a reliable source. It is the same concept that youtube videos are not reliable unless they were uploaded by a reliable source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

IRC Told Me To Come Here

A model from Men is featured here. This page does not mention the issue or his name. Here, it lists the models appearing, although because of the above reasons, I do not know who this person is. Does anyone know?174.3.103.39 (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• His name is Brock Magnum. 86.164.58.117 (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the person in the left most picture Mike Power in the blog post at Thursday, August 06, 2009?174.3.103.39 (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• The guy on the left is Criss Strokes. 86.164.58.117 (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Identification question

Does anyone know who this model is? I didn't know I could as questions here174.3.103.39 (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the help desk. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The help desk is for questions about editing Wikipedia. What they want is the reference desk which is for factual questions outside of Wikipedia. Dismas|^(talk) 23:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Besides, there's way too little information present to hope to ID the person in the photos IMO. Tabercil (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

White Bracelet

Here, this guy is wearing a white wrist band:

[17][18][19][20]

I was wondering if there's a meme attached to it like the Armstrong wristband. The wristband is white. If there is no meme attached to it, what is the brand,/where can I get it?

In the following links

[21][22]

Criss Strokes wears a white band. I cannot tell for certain if the band that Criss Strokes wears is the One white band. Where can I get it? Where can I get the MAKE POVERTY HISTORY white band?174.3.103.39 (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What does this have to do with assuming good faith, or with Baseball Bugs? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm curious about too. But to try and answer the question, white bracelets are apparently for many things including general cancer support and various Christian themes. But the reason why this guy probably has one might have something to do with LeBron James. See [23] for source. Dismas|^(talk) 21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Section heading changed - user has been banned for various reasons - including innapropiate section headings.83.100.250.79 (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Gregory Dark

Dark's manager has been editing the article. First the manager tried to delete virtually all mention of Dark's history as a porn director, but after I rewrote the article the manager moved all the sections so it reads in reverse chronological order. The manager left me a message explaining her/his edit.

I don't want this to become an edit war between me and the manager, so I'd appreciate it if another editor would take a look at the article and offer a third opinion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

XRCO Awards

To help readers, and due to the new pornbio awards criteria, we need to reduce the confusion caused by the fact that the "2003 XRCO Awards" are held in 2004, for example, whereas the "2003 AVN Awards", "2003 FAME Awards", etc are held in 2003. Maybe we could indicate next to each XRCO Award listing the year the award was presented, or for consistency we could always refer to an "2003 XRCO Award" as a "2004 XRCO Award". Any other ideas? Epbr123 (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Pornographic magazines as a reliable source

There's a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Adult_industry. There is also a discussion about the new WP:ENTERTAINER criteria at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:ENTERTAINER. Epbr123 (talk) 08:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

Relisted AFD of interest Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya Ababadjani (3rd nomination) Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Maria Beatty

There's debate over at Talk:Maria Beatty about nominating that article for deletion. Beatty is a director of BDSM porn films, and if WP:PORNBIO is taken to include porn directors as well as porn stars, then I think Beatty qualifies the first criterion. She has won two "Best Director" (fetish film) awards at Barcelona International Erotic Film Festival and one Best Independent Film award at the UK Erotic Awards. There's not a whole lot published about her, but she is the subject of an article in the Village Voice and another in a French LBGT magazine, as well as one article in an academic film journal. On balance, I would say that makes her notable, though others disagree. I'd like to get some more opinions, though. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Awards from experts in the field, and articles/interviews are real world confirmations of notability. They just need sourcing and coverage in the article. Last I heard Wiki's pseudo-definitions of "notability" agreed that confirmations of notability in the real world still count. If they start claiming that awards, interviews and articles are not confirmation of notability, then this whole "notability" shell-game has jumped the shark, and it's time to throw the whole thing out. Dekkappai (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

She passes WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a notable award or honor" Epbr123 (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

PornStarGlobal.com

May I ask editors here to comment on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Pornstarglobal.com revisited, according to the owner, the site was spammed by two, now ex- ,employees of the site. Would you consider using this site as a significant source, or as a significantly useful and suitable external link? Or would those cases be rare and would whitelisting be your choice? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography/Archive_4#Identification_question

Per the link in the headline, in reply to Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs): if a person posts pornography on Reference Desk, the person posting the pornography will be banned. Although it may seem I am asking a question, pornography is not allowed on the Reference desk. That is why questions must be asked here.174.3.110.93 (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Posting of images would be frowned upon since there are many people who read WP at work or in front of their kids. If you have a legitimate question and need to point people to an image, posting a link to the image (instead of displaying the image with your question) would be best. Dismas|^(talk) 04:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I did do that. I and got banned.174.3.110.93 (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

By, your reply, it seems it is not against the rules to post pornography on the reference desks.174.3.110.93 (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Claim of WP:SYNTH on The Surprise of a Knight

A contributor has made the claim that an "Assessment" section in the article The Surprise of a Knight constitutes a violation of WP:SYNTH. I disagree, as noted on the articles Talk page. I fail to see how synthesis can occur, when a published article's claims are simply restated on the page. No conclusion is drawn by me; conclusions are those of the cited authors, not this contributor. Nontheless, I would appreciate someone else taking a look at the section. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet another attempt to nuke the guideline

They're discussing dropping additional criteria to "suggestions" and forcing general only [24]. Horrorshowj (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Lists of award nominations

Should an article on a award-winning performer also include a list their award nominations? Some editors here are removing them from articles per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, while others here are restoring them again, believing that nominations are notable by themselves. Can we get a consensus on this to prevent further edit-warring? Epbr123 (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Does it say somewhere that in an article on a "notable" subject every factoid must be "notable" in and of itself? If so, that's insane, of course. Once "consensus" has determined a subject to be "notable" our goal should still be to write an article on said subject. Award nominations are part of one's biography, and more "notable" than, say, being born in 1976... everybody's born sometime... or are we removing birth years from articles as "non-notable info" now? Dekkappai (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I see it as a matter of both WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE if notability has already been established by an award win due to the opinion that these nominations are given out like candy. For example, Jenna Haze has what seems to be more than 25 award wins. She probably has quadruple that in nominations that lost. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I'm coming from the Japanese side where awards are tough to find, much less nominations (I have yet to find a single nomination). I still see it as part of a biography though. I know many people here seem to think that too much information is the greatest threat to world peace, but think like a reader: If you want to read a biography of someone, wouldn't you want to see award nominations? Myself, I want a thorough biography, and that includes filmography, nominations and wins. Also, please drop the "notability" angle, because this question is about a subject which has theoretically passed our "notability" definition. This is about writing a good, thorough biography on the subject. If clutter becomes the issue, then we break it off to another article. You guys do allow stand-alone filmographies for your subjects don't you? (There was some talk here before that we should choose which films are "notable". This continuous march towards making editors authorities is dangerous to the project, and it is against: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) which states, "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged".) So, just note the particular film listing at the filmography as a nomination or a win. You don't need a separate "Nominations" list. Dekkappai (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Also. Making nominations/wins part of, say, a "notes" field in a filmography will address concerns of "indiscriminate". A filmography is anything but an indisciminate collection of information. It's an organized list of work of the kind that should be part of the biography of any person in a creative or performing field. Dekkappai (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Full filmographies are discouraged in porn star articles, for the reasons pointed out in the following discussions: 1, 2, 3. Epbr123 (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that contradicts Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) which states, "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged". Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Filmographies says the reason for this is "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." which is insane, of course. A filmography is an organized list of works, not an indiscriminate collection of information. And, "Filmographies are to be limited to six films at most" which is a random number. This is an example of a small group of Wikipedia editors intentionally blocking information, and should be abolished. Once you've fixed that, putting nominations in the filmography will solve both problems-- the major one of the intentional, arbitrary censoring of information, and the minor one of whether to include nominations as a stand-alone list or not. Dekkappai (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, consensus is against listing full filmographies, so including nominations there isn't an option. My opinion on nominations is that they should only be included if the performer hasn't won an award. Gaining a nomination is a significant event for a minor performer such as Asa Akira, but not for someone like Jenna Jameson. Epbr123 (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Consensus is "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged." And this is a perfectly reasonable statement. Why would an encyclopedia article on a performer intentionally limit its lists of works to six? "Indiscriminate collection of information" has no bearing at all here, it applies to something like one of those "Trivia" lists, not to an organized, sourced list of works. This project's guideline is against consensus. Fix that, and both problems are solved. Dekkappai (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Except what happens when reliable scholarship does not exist for list of these films? This is the case with the Western side, at least if we are talking about using IAFD and IMDB. Further about the nominations, unlike the Oscars, many of the western porn awards/nominations are not based on specific films. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If reliable sourcing exists for the films why should we limit the filmography to six entries? Do we really think that a reader, coming to an article on a particular subject, is hoping for limited information? A partial filmography? One limited to six entries? Or will s/he want the most reliable information available? Again, format is not the issue. If a filmography starts to overwhelm the article, we pick a few of the higher-profile titles-- award-winners, whatever, maybe even an artificial numerical limitation-- and then link to a main, stand-alone filmography article. To go back to the nomination question: I would think a nomination by a reliable award for a performance in a film would be a good start in establishing that film's existence. Further sourcing, if available, would be welcome of course. The few U.S. subjects I glanced at a couple days ago did have "Best *** scene in the film such&such". If there are just over-all career awards, shifting these film-specific nominations to the filmography would, at least, significantly cut down on the size of any stand-alone "nominations" section. Dekkappai (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Steve Hirsch needs a major overhaul

Steven Hirsch is an article which I feel needs a radical change more than I am capable of doing I feel it meets WP:PORNBIO Dwanyewest (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Or it can be redirected to Vivid Entertainment because almost his entire biography is in the context of his company. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This article on page 76 about Steve Hirsch might prove useful. [25] Dwanyewest (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you feel it needs a major overhaul? Quite the sudden change of heart, seeing as you tolerated the current mess, even tended to it after someone turned it from the substub you had originally created into a mess any half-decent advertising agency would reject as over the top. I dispise intellectual dishonesty like this. --195.14.199.233 (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey why are you being so antagonistic did I complain that it should be changed I merely added to correct citation format and altered it all I did was dispute that it was notable I wasn't disputing that you thought the article was needed changing..

Dwanyewest (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. It's just, when I stumbled upon the page yesterday, my heart skipped a beat or two. It was certainly the most revolting page I've seen in a very long time (I've never bothered with newpage patrol). It should be clear to anyone who deems themselves fit to work on an encyclopedic project that many formulations in there were entirely unacceptable, not to mention diverse MoS-related issues. --195.14.199.233 (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change WP:PORNBIO criteria #5

I've started a discussion to change the criteria to read "Has been featured multiple times in reliable independent media. See WP:WikiProject Pornography for suggestions on sources." Please go to talk page and join in the discussion. Stillwaterising (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As an example of a porn actress that I think meets WP:BIO but doesn't necessarily meet WP:PORNBIO, I've brought back Heather Harmon from deletion. Please go to WP:Articles for deletion/Heather Harmon (2nd nomination) and enter in your opinion before 2009-11-09. -- Stillwaterising (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Heather Harmon Alerts

Heather Harmon is not showing up in the Article Alerts under deletions. Is it tagged properly? -- Stillwaterising (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's there now. Maybe it just took some time to update. Stillwaterising (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Someone Knows?

Who is this model?174.3.111.148 (talk) 10:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No idea but he has a slight resemblance to Ethan Hawke. Dismas|^(talk) 13:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It's Erik Grant. 81.156.180.206 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Problems at Mayfair (magazine)

I am having ongoing problems on Mayfair (magazine) with an overzealous editor. This has culiminated in them removing the list of featured models as "unsourced." When I partially reinstated it with references to the specific issues each individual appear it, they deleted it again claiming, "WP:RS, primary sources, referencing amounts to "I saw her in the magazine" -- secondary sources preferred WP:V problems." I have reinstated the referenced list, which seems no different to the existing on on Playboy. Any input on this dispute would be appreciated. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that pretty much the same issue was just discussed and resolved at Talk:List_of_mainstream_films_with_unsimulated_sex, where secondary sourcing was required, and the films themselves were not acceptable (primary) sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, is apparently on some sort of holy mission to remove as much sexually related content as he can get away with. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_mainstream_films_with_unsimulated_sex_(2nd_nomination). --Minutae (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted him on the Mayfair article, explaining that the use of primary sources is allowed to make descriptive claims under WP:PRIMARY. For something debatable and necessitates interpretation like figuring out whether unsimulated sex had occurred by looking at the primary source, that would be unacceptable original research. As for the holy mission comment, Minutae, assume good faith. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're wrong on this point, close to clearly wrong, being you're presuming that the magazine accurately identifies/names its models. This isn't a characteristic of softcore porn magazines in general, and there's nothing to back up the (implicit) claim that the specific magazine does so. Unless the magazine reliably identifies its models, we're left with unreliable "I looked at the pictures and it's her" IDs (a claim that NC himself made in a related discussion). WP:PRIMARY also states that "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them"; I would think that Mayfair doesn't meet that standard for reliability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If that is true about Mayfair not accurately identifies/names its models, needing interpretation to identify a model, then of course; citing to the issue is not enough. I haven't looked at a Mayfair in years so I can't remember how they name their models. I just presumed it was no different than Playboy or Penthouse. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

After a google search, it seems to me that Mayfair names its models clearly, especially the celebrity ones, so there's no interpretation is needed. Its possible Mayfair may misidentify a model, but I thinks its very unlikely. Epbr123 (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Mayfair in the timeframe in question (1980s/90s) certainly was analagous to contemporary issues of Playboy in that it was a high-profile, high-circulation, and high-quality publication, not some obscure knock-off. Naturally some glamour models very occasionally worked under different names, but were frequently retrospectively identified later on, which is the case with the specific disputed case HW refers to. Their suggestion that this was predominently the case, or that models were usually not named in the magazine at the time is disingenuous, to say the least.

It should also be noted that HW is grossly misrepresenting the other dispute relating to the magazine by claiming it as a case of "I looked at the pictures and it's her." This refers to the actress "Louise Germaine," who was born Tina Reid. She appeared in Mayfair under her birth name, years before she adopted the "Germaine" pseudonym for acting. Despite the Tina Reid in the magazine being described as coming from exactly the same home town (Margate in Kent) as "Louise Germaine," HW has suggested that that the link could not be made as it may not be the same person. It is only at this point that the fact that "they look the same" comes into play. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Are links to actual porno kosher?

I'm contributing to articles about porno in India, e.g.: Savita Bhabhi, Pornography in India. I would like to link to some stories written by amateurs to support my point that a lot of premarital/extramarital sex in India occurs within extended families, and this is reflected in Indian porno.

The links have the usual four-letter words -- often in Hindi as well as English. Furthermore the webpages are embellished with explicit photos that aren't really connected to the stories. Is it OK to have these links? Do I have a duty to warn folks about explicit language and images? Or is this just an exercise in futility where WP's morality cops are bound to prevail? LADave (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2009 (UT

• It's fine to link to reliable sources that happen to contain swearing or explicit photos. However, using stories written by amateurs to support your points seems like original research to me. Epbr123 (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. OK, let's say I cite a few scholars making this point but go on to link to actual porno. Would that still cross the "original research" line? LADave (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If you've cited your points to reliable scolarly sources, I can't see any need to also include links to actual porn. It may give the impression you're trying to promote certain porn sites. Epbr123 (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• That being said, warnings don't need to be made. The reader is already reading about pornography. Why would they expect to find "clean" text and images? Dismas|^(talk) 00:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, some readers might assume they're being directed to further scholarly discussion that would hardly ever be offensive per se. Now we are talking about material mostly without literary pretensions that can be pretty raw. Seems to me that a TV show about the porno industry showing actual clips would warn viewers about explicit material, so why not do the same in WP? LADave (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Without knowing the details of the pages in question, I don't know whether any of the points at WP:ELNO would apply or not, but if they do match any of those descriptions they probably should not be included. John Carter (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't point to a guideline or policy that spells it out specifically but, in the past, such "warning: offensive/adult material" warnings have been removed from links on articles of porn stars, porn films, production companies, etc. Dismas|^(talk) 18:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see that the rules should be any different to any other kind of link. So yes, you should be aware of issues such as whether the links are a reliable source, or would be original research, or constitute spamming/advertising (I agree with what Epbr123 says on this). But there is no problem with the fear of it offending people, nor any need to warn people. See Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Mdwh (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Asian fetish

This article could use some new eyes with expert knowledge/mediation/constructive input; I'm posting to several WikiProjects that seem relevant and to RfC. I have already done so on WP:Cleanup (other ideas just about where to seek help are also welcome). Article was created 06:51, 20 April 2004 by an IP. There's thirteen talk page archives and five Articles for Deletion discussions; there are 122 watchers and about 400 daily page views on average. Has never reached much of a consensus regarding the subject, content or sources AFAIK. Thanks! Шизомби (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Feminist Porn Awards and Adam Film World

They've been held for several years now with what appears to be a fair amount of news, journal, and book coverage: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Might this possibly be a good addition as an article or expanding within an article it is mentioned in (like Sex-positive feminism)? Likewise, there doesn't appear to be an article on Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL the magazine (1971?-2008?), book publisher and their Adam Film World Awards, initially called the X-Caliber (1976-2008?). Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Playboy Playmates and PORNBIO

There's a discussion about removing the Playboy Playmate criteria from WP:PORNBIO at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Every playmate is notable. Epbr123 (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC to remove notable performers from list who don't yet have articles

There is an RfC to remove dozens of entries from the only list of male performers in gay porn films because the articles for the performers don't yet exist. More eyes would be appreciated. -- Banjeboi 21:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with guidelines for gay porn performer articles

I've started a discussion at Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films about guidelines for biographies of gay porn performers. There's been a lot of discussion about various BLP issues on that talk page. I would like to avoid those issues -- and others -- as new articles get created. Comments welcome. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Anja Juliette Laval

It seems that an admin had taken it upon himself to delete this article as an "attack page" when the only "negative" information on the page was the her status as former porn performer. The performer in question had won a European award and therefore met the criteria of WP:PORNBIO, and the article itself was a translation from German Wikipedia. Apparently, its now not OK in English Wikipedia to mention in a biography of a living person that they've performed in adult films. Who knows what articles are next on the hit list. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been going on for a while actually, at least with gay porn articles. No one but admins can verify what actually was there although google searches may still show a mirror of the original article. -- Banjeboi 07:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm always happy to help with restoring deleted articles, so long as there are no BLP or other policy problems. To look at deleted articles, you can try Deletionpedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The article was restored for improvement after persistently pointing out to the deleting admin that deleting articles early in PRODs was counter-productive. No clear explanation as to why early deletion was needed was given. Ash (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Jacklyn Lick

Hi. Over at Wikiproject Oregon we're referencing our unrefed BLP articles. She's on there, and I can't find good sources for her. We're probably going to end up deleting the ones we can find sources for, so if someone could find some good sources, add them, and then drop a comment at our projects talk page, that would be great. I don't want to delete it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure if she meets the criteria of WP:PORNBIO. She might just scrape by via criterion #5, but her appearances in mainstream media sound like non-featured roles. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I prodded it. Please save it if you can. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of IAFD

Is IAFD.com a reliable source for personal info such as birth dates and birth locations? This has been asked before, but there's never been a firm conclusion. As the majority of porn star articles currently use this as a source, its reliability really needs to be confirmed. Epbr123 (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Since its content is user-generated, I thought the consensus was that it's reliable to a very limited extent, and never for birth dates and locations. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 3#IAFD & AFDB. Also, see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, a failed proposal concerning a similar user-generated film site. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I want to point out what was said by Morbidthoughts at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography/Archive_4#Reliable_sources:

"I help run IAFD so I won't offer an opinion on its reliability. People can submit additions and corrections (but it should be adequately sourced if there's a conflict) but we have to approve it and sometimes we go to 2257 information on hand to confirm things like birthdate and height." (emphasis mine)

Remember folks, 2257 information is a legal document - and I think (maybe Morbid can elaborate for me?) 2257 typically consists of a copy of the performers birth certificate and/or drivers license. So I would consider basic information such as birth date, birth place and height to be accurate, as these would be found on those documents. Tabercil (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

2257s require two forms of IDs verifying the birthdate. I shouldn't say height because I never really look at the actual ID. Just the dates and name that companies provide to reviewers who publish screencaps. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume that 2257 applies only to the US? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In answer to the above question, 2257 is not legally binding outside of the US, however, almost all foreign porn producers keep 2257 records in order to make their productions legally available in the US. Note that use of 2257 info does raise privacy concerns – hopefully nobody is doing stuff like pulling real names off of these documents and publishing them via the internet. If they are, we shouldn't be passing that info along here. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Using 2257 info directly for wikipedia would violate WP:WELLKNOWN privacy concern. Yes, people have published them on the net. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that IAFD can only be seen as reliable if they verify all their info, rather than just the birth dates occassionally, or if the only info they don't verify comes from reliable-ish contributors such as film companies or the performers themselves. Does info ever get put on IAFD just because some average guy on the internet says it's true? Epbr123 (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) So far, I have noticed 3 different forums where this question has recently been raised. Does anyone feel the guidance of FORUMSHOPPING applies? Ash (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Post the links then. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr. In a DRV and on RSN I think, as these were different editors I no longer think it's an obvious case of forumshopping. Ash (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)