Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 3

message: When factual, verified, relevant information is excluded from an article, it is censorship as defined by Webster's Dictionary. The only question to ponder here is whether a porn actor's complete filmography is relevant. Its relevance is self-evident; without the acting, the individual wouldn't have a Wikipedia article to begin with. As long as the titles are verified through the usual procedures, there is no logical reason to omit them from an article other than to exercise censorship.
I recognize that people might be squeamish about, say, Matthew Sanchez's "Tijuana Toilet Tramps," a film that we can reasonably presume was not a documentary about the pressing issue of undocumented immigration. Rather than omit titles, they should be listed in a separate section, as they are with, say, Katherine Hepburn, an actor in non-porn films. To answer the squeamishness issue, I'd suggest that the listings be handled in such a way as to require an additional click, along with a notice that the forthcoming material could be objectionable to some readers.
The alternative is for Wikipedia to make an exception to its censorship policy. I would oppose doing that, but if Wikipedia does make an exception I urge in the strongest possible terms that Wikipedia be honest about what it's doing and not parade any euphemisms (such as "editorial self-restraint" or "lack of notability" or "undue weight") in front of readers or otherwise twist the definitions of words. Omitting relevant, verified facts is censorship, plain and simple. If Wikipedia is going to engage in censorship, have the dignity not to lie to people about that. Pwok 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give me a break! The fact that complete filmographies are not listed has nothing to do with censorship or squeamishness. It has everything to do with the fact that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia doesn't list complete filmographies for non-porn actors and filmmakers either. Instead, links are provided to IMDB, IAFD, EGAFD, etc, where readers can go and find full filmographies. That's Wikipedia policy and it makes perfect sense, IMO. Iamcuriousblue 15:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, what Icb wrote. Katharine Hepburn is a four-time Academy Award-winning actress, considered by some the greatest American actress of all time. Her filmography stretches over 60 years. It is darn likely that the least of the films she has been in has been seen by more people than the sum of all the people that have seen any of the films of Matt Sanchez. He is no Katharine Hepburn. This has nothing to do with censoring film titles, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored - if a notable film had an obscene title, we'd write it. In fact, I made a pornographic filmography article myself Jenna Jameson chronology of performances, when our articl on Jenna Jameson got too long even when restricted to listing solely the award-winning films (she's won a lot of awards). When Matt Sanchez's films get that kind of coverage, feel free to list them all in his or a separate article.  This isn't a judgment on quality or content, solely on the notice each film has gotten. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Impressive speech. Did you notice the part about getting Jenna Jameson to Wikipedia:Featured article? Would you be so kind as to say just a tiny a bit of article improvement does somehow make it out of this project on rare occasions? You can clearly write well, so we'd appreciate your help. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've finally figured out enough of the arcana to feel as if I have the mental space to look at the article. I've done so. What is it that you want me to do now? If it's my opinion you want, I'd say that it's on the lyrical side, and as a result it could be fairly criticized for not being a "neutral" protrait but rather an "affectionate" portrait of the subject. This goes to Wikipedia's editorial voice; as an encyclopedia, I'd aim for a Joe Friday approach. It would be duller but more neutral. It contains a fair amount of material that probably shouldn't be there if the article is to be "neutral." It's well-written for sure, but a little over the top. Pwok 21:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh ... We've got a list of stuff that needs doing... Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Opentasks ... :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am somewhat reluctant to assist the Pornography project, given my view that it embodies censorship. I have run smack into this project being cited as justification for omitting the verified Matt Sanchez videography. To "improve" such a project would be complicity in censorship, and I that's not something I'm prepared to do. Pwok 21:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's pretty simple. Wikipedia:Trifecta.  The bit about not having a long list of films overwhelming an article is the "undue weight" clause of NPOV - part 1. The bit about working together with other editors and agreeing on whether that really would be overwhelming or not is part 2. Other than that, don't sweat it - part 3. If it really were that hard to edit stuff, we wouldn't have 1,808,876 articles, would we? :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of the films in the Robert Mitchum article are already notable enough to have their own articles. If a porn star were in films of that level of notability, I would have no trouble with listing those films in the bio. But most porn films are not that notable.  I think the current guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Filmographies which boils down to, "list 6, unless the films have some other degree of notability", is sufficient. --Elonka 21:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename this project "Wikipedia censorship of pornographic filmographies" 

message: I'm engaged in a discussion on the fair-use of images for retired Japanese erotic actresses here which may be of interest to members of this project. Dekkappai 18:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use for retired erotic performers 

message: Just noticed that Fusker page is at risk of deletion.
Anyone here know why it would be considered not 'Notable' ?
Any experts care to attempt a re-write ?
195.137.93.171 04:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it doesn't have other people writing about it. The tool has lots of users, but hasn't gotten much press. Unfortunately, we are only supposed to write about things that others have already written about. If you can point us to two unrelated articles about the tool, we'll fix the article and keep it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fusker - page may be deleted 

message: Just thought I'd let the project know I just got an article on Japanese pink film director, Giichi Nishihara at the DYK page-- Wikipedia:Recent additions. Dekkappai 01:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese porn director at DYK 

message: Does anyone have any objections if I were to add a section commenting about the need for reliable sources for the real names of porn stars, and that IMDB does not count as one? I'd also be adding some text by Jimbo to back up the IMDB part of the text (which can be seen on Talk:Mason Marconi). Tabercil 00:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I've up and added a section on this topic. Feel free to comment and criticize. Tabercil 22:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real names 

message: I'm being very bold, and modifying our  template to include article assessment information.
Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Assessment, and expand it, comment on its talk page, whatever; right now it contains information specific to our project, but just refers to other project pages for the basics of article assessment. If you want to change something, change it there, or comment on the talk page there. If you just think this whole idea of adding assessment is absolutely horrible (or absolutely great), comment here. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 04:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea, I think. I've been keeping track of the rankings of the Japanese subjects myself so that the stubs don't lie around in a stubbish state forever. Having a quality ranking makes it easier to see where work is needed most. Dekkappai 22:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Project Assessment 

message: I noticed that the Pornography Portal was badly in need of updating and repair, so i did my best to get it up to speed. Any feedback or additional editing welcome. Arundhati lejeune 12:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feedback. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal 

message: I was working on the Jeff Stryker and John Holmes articles when I began investigating if there was a significant number of these unusually large size penis owners among Wikipedia's articles. The first thing I did was to revert an edit to Template:Male adult bio which hid the displaying of penis measurement. Having then this tool I checked all articles which applied the template to see if there were in fact many more such persons. I was amazed to find more than 50 individuals with penises 8.5" or more, according to information given in their biographies. This has led me to create two items:
*The section Men famous for their large penis of the article Human penis size
*The category :Category:Men with unusually large penis
Both of these were targeted almost immediately for either being trivial or the problems of unreliable  information or arbitrary criteria. I think perhaps some editors associated with this project might want to check out the discussion at Talk:Human penis size and the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. __meco 12:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Big-bust models and performers has now also been nominated for deletion. __meco 08:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Directing attention to penis size category/article 

message: :Category:Big-bust models and performers has now also been nominated for deletion. __meco 08:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big bust category also in jeopardy 

message: I feel that Human penis size could benefit from the attention of this project. Is there disagreement on adding the project banner to that article? __meco 23:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object because the article is not directly related to this project. 72.76.103.97 00:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just figured it fitted the project's scope which includes "The larger topic of pornography itself, and social and cultural issues surrounding it." __meco 06:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't.  You may want it to, but it doesn't.  72.76.15.109 10:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think I agree with 72(etc.). It's primarily an anatomy and sexuality article, not pornography. It's also a popular Sexual fetish with a fair bit of pornography devoted to it, but so are nurses, high heels, lingerie, and Japanese schoolgirls, surely we're not going to add articles on all of them to our project. Sex is fundamental to all human existence, pornography is somewhat more narrowly defined. However, if you want to write a separate but related article, "Penis size in pornography", that seems like it would be fine, and it seems like there would be plenty of material for it, not just modern films starting with John Holmes, but all the way back to medieval woodcuts and maybe even cave paintings. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I would further suggest that if you do write an article entitled "Penis size in pornography", you put one or two short paragraphs on the topic of "Penis in porn" into the "Human penis size" article, and precede those stub paragraphs with a link to the "Penis in porn" article. See articles like Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal segment to get an idea of what I'm referring to. Tabercil 23:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that that's good approach. I have now examined the documentation for penis size claims in all articles that have been involved and tagged with  those which present claims that aren't properly attributed or that don't originate from a reliable source. __meco 15:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Your user space is a good scratch space. User:Meco/Penis size in pornography or something. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: His list has no place on this project page.  His list and the article where he wants to insert it are not directly related to this project.  72.68.123.113 17:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding article 

message: I just received a big donation of high-quality adult film star pics from a Flickr user - they can be seen at User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images#Requests to Flickr users. (It should be pretty obvious which ones are porn stars.) Some are for actresses for whom we apparently do not have articles. Videmus Omnia  Talk  01:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New pics 

message: I noticed some articles are titled with "<name> (porn star)" and others like "<name> (pornstar)". It'd be nice if there were some recommended usage (for article names) for consistency sake. MahangaTalk 02:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "porn star" should be two words. Any use of "pornstar" should be changed. Alternately, should "adult film actor" or "adult film actress" be used instead of the more colloquial "porn star"? Thoughts? Iamcuriousblue 12:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We want to be short in the article title, and can use longer forms in the article text. (porn star) is earthy, but unambiguous, (adult actor) or (adult actress) could also work. Just (actor) or (actress) also usually work when there aren't mainstream actors or actresses with that name. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pornstar or porn star 

message: What do people think? I think we clearly need one. I like the XXX, it's much better than any of the ... ummm ... more graphic ... imagery that could be used. :-) I'm slightly worried by the rust on the star - rust and pornography aren't necessary the most pleasant association -- but not worried enough to actually take the effort to change it myself. :-) Any other comments? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject award! 

message: A discussion about deletion sorting of PORNBIO's has been started at WT:DS#Pornography_list. John Vandenberg 00:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion sorting 

message: Any of you who watchlist articles for porn stars or models have probably seen the linkspam that turns up labelled as "Photo gallery" or "Official site" (when it's not) - following the link leads you to a bunch of copyvio photos and some Google ads. The link is normally the model's name followed by .net, .org, or .biz. This is a huge campaign being carried out by a handful of spammers - for example, one of them is up to well over 200 domains (see User:A. B./Sandbox16). WP:WPSPAM is currently working on this, and we could use some help in identifying domains for blacklisting. If you see a link like this, could you please drop a note on my page, or at WT:WPSPAM? This is the current thread on this issue - that page normally gets archived pretty quickly, but the volunteers there will know what you are talking about if you mention "porn linkspammer" or "fake official site". Appreciate any help anyone can give in shutting down the spammer's access to Wikipedia. Videmus Omnia  Talk  13:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Tabercil has been a consistent fighter against these cookie-cutter sites, and has additional documentation on this issue going back quite a long ways in User:Tabercil\Porn Linkspam (yes, the backslash is correct). Let's drop a note on his page. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed... these idiots are a long thorn in my side. They used to use a given set of IPs for their spamming and I was able to find and follow their work by checking for additions from those site, then backchecking to the blocked site to see what new URLs they have. Then they changed tactics and seem to favor proxies for their access. So in terms of blocking them from being able to add the links to Wikipedia, good luck on that score. In fact I would suggest automatically dumping any IP used to add this spam to WP:WPOP. There is one more thing I can suggest, and I'm going to put that suggestion on the WT:WPSPAM talk page. Tabercil 00:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This crap does annoy. I tend to be pretty diligent about checking links on the pages I do watch and taking them down if they turn out to be pure linkspam. (But I can't keep an eye on everything, obviously.) Obviously, having porn as an article subject involves having links to actors' official sites and interviews on what might also be adult sites. Unfortunately, this seems to embolden spammers who think, well, if that link is OK, why not mine? (I've actually had one or two obvious spammers actually challenge my deletes on this basis.) Iamcuriousblue 00:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, if they don't see the light, let me know and I'll make sure they see it... via lots of little stars circling their head after judicious application of my block-hammer. <G> Tabercil 00:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help with linkspammers 

message: Could someone take a look at :Image:Cream_of_the_crop.jpg as I'm not sure about notability in this area.  Cream of the Crop is about an unrelated album, so I suspect some disambiguation is required.  See also The_French_Connection_(videos)#Cream_of_the_Crop. John Vandenberg 00:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cream of the Crop 

message: I've rarely seen a genre of articles so often nominated for AFD as porn-related articles. From various subject matter to individual performer articles (regardless of whether they meet notability requirements), I'm willing to bet that articles under this WikiProject have the hardest time being kept on Wikipedia without running into difficulty. In that regard, I wonder if this page shouldn't include some sort of rationale for why such articles are important and why at least some porn performers are just as notable as mainstream actors and worthy of articles. Such a statement could then be referred to by those attempting to defend articles from AFD or PROD nomination (at least those that otherwise do satisfy notability, but that are being nominated either due to WP:OSTRICH or straight-out anti-porn bias. The essay at Wikipedia:Pornography is also a good source as it sums up where Wiki draws the line as a whole. 68.146.41.232 13:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On an optimistic level, I might fully agree with you. However, it's not that people don't think that pornographic articles are "just as notable as mainstream actors and worthy of articles", it's that personal biases against pornography come into play 9 times out of 10. Given that every contributor has some kind of opinion on pornography, people are really polarized in their opinion of it already. So you could write a detailed, persuasive rationale for inclusion of pornography articles in Wikipedia, but I doubt that it would be effective given the polarizing effect pornography has on people. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 15:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think we already have such an argument present: WP:PORNBIO.  <G> Tabercil 16:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In part, but I believe the editor was referring to an essay on the merits of having pornography articles in Wikipedia. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 16:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps rationale for these articles should be added 

message: In seeing that Jenna Jameson has achieved FA status, I was not able to find any additional pornography articles on pornography actors that have made it to FA status. So I propose that we see which articles are GA/FA worthy, and then work on polishing them up. Among a few of my picks, they include:
* John Holmes
* Ron Jeremy
* Linda Lovelace
Personally, I believe we should start working on Ron Jeremy, since that seems to be the better article of the three, and can be quickly brought to FA status. Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Assessment, that lists and rates our articles. "We" actually have another FA (since the project's scope expanding to cover all Pornography, from just Porn stars), History of erotic depictions. Not that it was an FA by project participants as such, it was mostly the work of User:Pschemp; but that's a mere technicality. :-). Similarly, we have a Wikipedia:Good article; on a pornography US Supreme Court case. Anyway, WP:P*/A#Statistics lists our articles in categories by quality and importance; you can, at a few clicks, see that we have 58 :Category:B-Class Pornography articles, that would presumably have more material already in them, and 16 :Category:Top-importance Pornography articles articles, that presumably have more material in the outside world to add. You will notice a number come from the list on the user page of User:Dekkappai - Dek has done wonders while you were inactive, making quite a few good articles on Japanese porn stars. I've been prompting him to nominate a few for GA, as I think they qualify, but he says he's on Wikibreak for a while, and I can't do it myself without him, as I just don't have access to the resources if anyone asks questions. Specifically for Ron Jeremy, I recall User:Tabercil wanted to make that the next FA target, and even asked me to help, but I have been woefully remiss in helping out. :-( --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very cool. :-) In any event, we need to get some actor biographies some love as well. Ron Jeremy would be a good place to start as any, since it's the most developed. I guess I'll go about reading it over then posting my suggestions on it, a la Jenna Jameson, sometime later. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 20:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be willing to help out if work is started on the hedgehog's article. Trevor GH5 23:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at it right now, it's a little over-sectionalized, especially in the "Non-pornographic appearances" section. Contact me if you still want to make an FA push. Trevor GH5 23:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More featured articles 

message: A user brought up a proposal to change the "natural bust" field into something more neutrally worded. See this. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 20:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on minor change regarding "natural bust" field in infobox 

message: Would anyone object if I nominated Micah Moore for deletion? Epbr123 11:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even discounting the press release and trivial mention, that's a fair bit of unrelated non-trivial coverage. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Micah Moore AfD 

message: I'd like to ask for other editors' opinions. An anon editor (a family member, I suspect) added a great deal of information to Jack Baker (actor) yesterday. Unfortunately none of it was sourced. I edited it and cut quite a bit, because I didn't think it was particularly important (the names of his friends, an unpublished screenplay), and in some cases I couldn't find the "important" people named in the article using Google. (I also added an infobox.)
Today another anon editor restored all the deleted material with an edit summary "Returned information gemane to a fuller understanding and appreciation of Mr. Bailey's life and contributions." (Baker's name was John Bailey.)
I don't want to get into an edit war, but I continue to believe that most of the material I deleted doesn't belong in the article. Could somebody else take a look at the article and its edit history and see if I was too aggressive in cutting material? Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article needs to have reliable and verifiable sources. It presently has none of those, other than two links to IAFD and IMDb. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 21:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jack Baker (actor)]] 

message: Just a FYI... User:Acido rockstar continues to add links to boob911.sensualwriter.com. Myself and others have removed them from the pages he(?) continues to add them to, namely Ines Cudna, Ewa Sonnet and Fuko. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  boob911.sensualwriter.com link 

message: I was wondering about what references would be considered proper sources for porn-related articles as per WP:Verify. Specifically, I want to substantially rewrite the Abbywinters.com article to be based more on published, verifiable sources. There's a blog that was started by an ex-AW member and staffer called Liandra Lets Loose. In it, she claims that "Abby Winters" is a man named Garion Hall, which is in contradiction to the official story on AbbyWinters.com that Abby Winters is a real person. Ideally, I think the article should state both versions of the story, however, I'm unsure as to whether Liandra's blog passes muster under WP:VERIFY. Then again, information about porn-related subjects often is hard to find from sources more "reliable" than websites. Anyway, I'd appreciate the thoughts and guidance of other members of this project. Iamcuriousblue 04:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm.... at best, I believe it'd probably be disputed if you included it. On the other hand do we have any reliable evidence that Liandra worked for AW? If so, we may yet have a case for inclusion then. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 04:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She's pictured as one of the models on that site , as well as I FeelMyself.  I don't think there's been any dispute that the Liandra who runs the blog is the same person. Iamcuriousblue 06:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I suppose it can be added, although it's technically an allegation. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 07:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be sure to include language making it clear that it is an allegation. Iamcuriousblue 07:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on article sources 

message: : the  template is useful here
* Here is a reasonable candidate for discussion: . I think it meets several criteria: 
:* it's edited reasonably often by IPs: 19 IP edits in the last month, which is about 40%
:* those IP edits tend to be reverted as vandalism
:* it's in debatable shape - not even B-class, but not a stub, has 15 references
:* and it has an interesting special case: an alternative newspaper printed personal information based on a prior version of our article, which was then for a while used to source that same information in our article
: on the other hand
:* it's a reasonably high profile article, there are a number of editors watching it
:* the subject is quite notable as a porn star - look at the length of that awards list - and presumably could be improved
: Good example for indefinite semi-protection? How about maybe a month or two months? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say a two month trial run would be a good idea for an article, unless circumstances warrant a longer (or infinite) extension. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  2 months. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific candidates 

message: Could I get some support over at the erotica article to keep the section on student erotica? Thanks! Student erotica 04:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: The user "Student erotica" is alleged to be a sockpuppet of South Philly and has instigated an edit war over the content. Further replies will be left at Talk:Erotica in the appropriate section. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 04:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Student erotica 

message: Are IAFD and AFDB reliable sources per WP:BLP for personal info such as dates of birth? Epbr123 00:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, see WP:RSEX#Use of electronic or online sources. IMDb biography/trivia sections are user supplied, sometimes anonymously with limited editorial oversight. IAFD (RAME.net) information comes in part from rec.arts.movies.erotica. The databases are reliable for the movies themselves, cast, and crew. • Gene93k 02:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I would put more stock in IAFD and even AFDB over IMDb any day of the week, seeing that the people responsible for RAME are also responsible for IAFD. (As for AFDB, they get their stuff from the manufacturers directly.) However, regardless of that, technically neither AFDB nor IMDB are "reliable sources" in Wikipedia's eyes. So, the short answer is "no". -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 05:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IAFD & AFDB 

message: I would like to request that the page "Lucy Pinder" be taken out of wikiproject pornography, she is not a porn star, she has posed topless but thats it, the WWE diva Mickie James has posed nude once, yet she isnt a part of this project.--[[Metal to the Max! 11:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's appropriate. As you've noticed, we're not WikiProject Porn Stars any more, we do cover all pornography. Our article on pornography defines it as "the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal and/or sexual relief". It's pretty clear that Lucy Pinder's main reason for notability is the representation of her body with the goal of sexual arousal; the only question is what "explicit" means. I know that in Europe toplessness is not seen as big a deal as in the US; however, in her own article, Lucy Pinder, it says that she made a big deal out of not posing topless for a while, but eventually went to a completely nude photo set. Fully nude is about as "explicit representation of the human body" as you can get. I don't know much about Mickie James, but her article gives only one line to her posing, she seems to be a wrestler. If someone were to add her to this project based on one pictorial, I wouldn't object, but I'm not going to press for it. As a counterexample, though, Chyna (Joanie Laurer), however, had several Playboy shoots and videos, so should probably be added to our project. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But posing in playboy or nude anywhere for that matter is not classed as porn, toppless is nothing, porn is seriouise. think of it like this, a girls parents wouldnt care asmuch about their child posing toppless compared to being in a porn video. by having people who have posed toppless or nude in this project would be giving them a reputation they do not deserve. waether that be classed as good or bad. --Metal to the Max! 11:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Playboy is softcore pornography and nude glamour models clearly fall under the scope of this project. And frankly, this is a nonsensical and rather incoherent argument you're making. Wikipedia is not about regard for people's "reputations" one way or the other. Iamcuriousblue 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK i agree with the whole playboy thing, but i dont have a problem with that, Lucy pinder has only posed toppless, that is not porn, type porn in google and see what pops up, it wont be Lucy Pinder pics, it will be Jenna Jameson and so on, thats my point. My augument has nothing to do with playboy, if you didnt notice i did make the subject title Lucy Pinder. --Metal to the Max! 10:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is anyone gonna answer me? i asked a question then everyone has a sook about it, i give a good reason for my opinion and then no one has anything to say at all. I could just do it myself but then i get a message saying im a vandal and a sockpuppet. this wikiproject really needs to get into shape!! --Metal to the Max! 11:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... looks like two people already did. Perhaps it is just no the answer your looking for? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No, they gave me an answer i had a rebutle to, therefor i still havnt gotton a valid reason why lucy pinder cant be released from the project. --Metal to the Max! 10:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She has posed fully nude, the same as models in Playboy. If Playboy models come under the project, so does Lucy. Epbr123 11:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really mate, are you really really sure about that, because from what iv heard she has only posed topless. and when she has posed nude she has been covering up in some way, therefor she could be wearing something under that cover up now couldnt she. and if you are certain that she has posed fully nude then give me a link to prove it. --Metal to the Max! 10:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  and . She's not showing her genitalia, but that's the difference between hardcore and softcore pornography. Epbr123 11:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lucy Pinder]] 

message: In describing the "Violent pink" genre of Japanese films at the article on Yasuharu Hasebe, I came across a source that made a comparison to the American "roughies". I was surprised to find that there is no article on this genre. Or is there one, but I'm looking in the wrong place? Or would this be a good subject for an article for someone who knows something about the genre? (I do not, but I'd be interested in reading one.) Dekkappai 17:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Roughies" 

message: now i know Carmella is a proper porn star, she has been in many pornos, yet she has no page? could someone who knows abit about her pls make a page on her. --Metal to the Max! 09:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She has to meet one of the criteria pertaining to people and pornography performers on WP:BIO. If she does, then she can have her own page. ;-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 15:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK i can respect that, but why cant she just have a page made? I mean if she is a porn star, (she has performed with Kelly Madison and for naughty america) and many more movies, what else do we need to make a page for her??--Metal to the Max! 09:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Carmella Bing had a page and it was deleted per this AfD as not notable. If it is created again it will probably be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4 unless it can cite objective notability. The best way to do that is find an award she won or was credibly nominated for. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camella Bing 

message: It's been rumoured that Luke Ford is no longer the person behind lukeisback.com. He had put his website for sale, rumoured to have then sold the site, and then a mysterious post (from the buyer?) denying that the site was for sale. As such, he may  no longer own his images. I think we must seek clarification and assurances that the license is still valid. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The license is still valid. He owned the images at the time he licensed them. In fact, he has been back in touch with Tabercil just recently, saying that more images from his lukeford.net site (mostly minor mainstream celebrities) are also covered by the license, and are similarly free to use. As for lukeisback.com, the style does not seem to have changed. I suspect the sale did not go through. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luke Ford 

message: I would like to discuss removing the use of nominations as a notability criteria for pornographic actors. My arguments are in the discussion page of WP:notability. I believe the amount of nominations given by AVN every year renders the "serious nominee" criteria to be a joke. I would like members of the project to participate in the discussion. I must disclose that I am a voting/nominating member of the XRCO Awards, but I also believe that only winners should be considered notable, not nominees. Vinh1313 (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that nominations shouldn't be solely used as a notability criteria, we've already discussed this previously on Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors) and consensus was clearly split on the subject. Unless I'm wrong, I doubt that much has changed since that discussion some months ago. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 07:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than AVN having just unleashed probably about a hundred more nominees to wade through. Vinh1313 (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that what the 2008 AVN nominations are a farce (up to 15 nominees per category), but I still believe nominations through 2007 remain credible enough. Credible recognition as one of the best should be good enough for notability. The options here all look messy. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed amendment to WP:notability 

message: I put the Tetsuji Takechi article up for GA review here. Since he's known as the Father of Japanese Porn, maybe someone at this project would like to take a look at the article? Dekkappai (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WPP GA Review 

message: Is the page Ero-guro part of this project?--A (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it might, but I think a big problem with the article is that its not well-written and it makes it bloody unclear as to what "ero-guro" even is. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the state of the Ero-guro article-- needs lots of work. As to whether it falls under this category... Yes and no. Sometimes Ero-guro goes into porn, and vice-versa... I wonder myself about very soft, erotic films, such as, in Korean cinema, Mulberry and Madame Aema. I know that the Koreans themselves, coming out of a decade of strict censorship, considered these films shocking and "pornographic" at the time. By U.S. standards, and by South Korean standards of today, they are pretty tame. So, should we put the "Porn project" tag on them? Any thoughts? Dekkappai (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Does "ero-guro" include extreme musicians like The Gerogergegee (sp?). That's not pornography per se (even if some of the members do stuff like jerk off on stage). Some of the manifestations of this movement in visual art might come under the heading of "pornography". Again, I'd need to know the specifics. But what it sounds like to me, more than anything, is a multi-medium artistic movement, probably falling under WikiProject Arts more than anything. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Question 

message: There is currently an edit war going in the article. An IP who identifies himself as the webmaster or owner of DanaDearmond.com keeps reinserting his link as her official website when she is no longer affiliated with it. Vinh1313 (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 16:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dana DeArmond article semi-protect request 

message: I've created a template for members of WikiProject Pornography to use, and another for anyone interested in pornography to use.
The first is a user box for individuals interested in pornography. It can be found at :Template:User Pornography. The code for putting this template on your User page is .  The template puts a user box on the page, and points to WikiProject Pornography.
The second is a user box for individuals who are members of WikiProject Pornography. It can be found at :Template:User WikiProject Pornography. The code for putting this template on your User page is .  The template puts a user box on the page, announces your membership in WikiProject Pornography, and points to WikiProject Pornography.
I relied on the pornography barnstar for an image.  If anyone has a better suggestion, I'm very open to that.  (I don't "own" these templates; templates should be a collaborative project.) The user box template is blue because pornography is "blue" (get it?).  The WikiProject member user box is all red text, because pornography used to be relegated only to "red light district" (get it?). (I hear that groaning at my awful humor!)
Please leave comments here and on the respective template talk page, if you feel there should be changes or see errors or whatnot. Thank you. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice templates. I really like the "hard-core member".  There's another porn template at User:UBX/porn. I also made a WikiProject Pornography member template at User:Malik Shabazz/Userboxes/WikiProject Pornography, but I never got around to publicizing it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two templates 

message: Just wanted to let you guys know that I completely rewrote the AVN (magazine) article. Despite its importance, it was a complete puff piece before. However, I stopped looking up references after 2004 because I got tired of reading the same crap over and over. Heh. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AVN Magazine 

message: I'm not a member of this project, but I thought I would bring to the group's attention the fact that deletionists now have another bit of ammunition in their ongoing quest to rid WP of articles on adult film performers and models. Once again Wikipedia's rules appear to have changed without wide consultation so a new AFD for Carmen Hayes is citing new criteria under WP:BIO (which I'll have to investigate as it's new to me) as grounds for deleting that particular article. I'm not stating an opinion as to whether the particular article on Hayes is worthy of inclusion even under previous rules, but this should probably serve as a heads up that more porn star articles are likely to be targeted similarly, even if they've survived AFD challenges in the past (as is the case with Hayes). Or, it could be a case of an overzealous editor confusing guidelines with policy or proposed changes with policy (which happens reguarly in AFD nominations) in which case the project may want to set the record straight before an AFD flood occurs. 23skidoo (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there was a discussion to merge the separate pornography bio guidelines into the regular, all encompassing ones in which certain things were discussed. The number of films was always a contentious point anyway, so that was thrown out a while ago, IIRC. Which I agree with, since consensus was split on that point. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:BIO rules apparently have changed again 

message: User:Gkleinman‎ and User:24.21.183.177 has been adding references and external links to his website XCritic in many articles, which goes against wp:soap. He's been warned by several users not to do this. I've been trying to go through and remove them. Please keep an eye out for it.Vinh1313 (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only links placed are ones which are legitimate citations. Your removal of them is a disservice to WP Gkleinman (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The links added to Digital Playground for example were marginally relevant and of little informational value per WP:EL. They are borderline WP:link spam and the blatant conflict of interest clinches it. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If you want to suggest any external links or references (citations) to your websites, you should suggest them in the talk page as per WP:EL and WP:SOAP. Your conflict of interest and your failure to observe these guidelines and policies is the disservice to wikipedia. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK Further links will be proposed for inclusion on the discussion page vs placed in the article. Sorry.. Gkleinman (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gkleinman‎ 

message: Digital Playground's newest contract star does not have a WP entry. She has been cited by AVN a few times. Here they are for reference:
 Digital Playground Signs Stoya to Exclusive Contract
DP's Stoya Makes Her Boy/Girl Debut in Jack's POV 9
She's got a number of roles in big DP productions in the future. So she might be a good candidate for an entry Gkleinman (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stoya 

message: We have recently (within the last eight days), doubled the number of Wikipedia:Good articles in our project :Category:GA-Class Pornography articles, to six!
* Tetsuji Takechi - first Japanese pink film director, mostly authored by User:Dekkappai. Possibly a Wikipedia:Featured article candidate? GA Jan 4.
* Louise Glover - British glamour model, article survived an AFD. GA Jan 4.
* Karen McDougal - Playboy Playmate of the Year, article mostly authored by an IP editor, GA Dec 1.
Just a bit earlier,
* Casey Donovan - early gay porn star, mostly by User:Otto4711, brought us to three on Dec 1. I notice Otto is not in our membership rosters - terrible oversight! Off to campaign... :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New [[Wikipedia:Good Articles]]! 

message: Someone might want to spruce up the page, it's pretty bare bones. It's gotten an 2008 AVN Nomination and  XCritic Picks Not The Bradys XXX as Top Adult DVD For 2007Gkleinman (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not The Brady's XXX 

message: I'm bringing this up because his porn career is practically an urban legend - except this urban legend happens to be true. His WP bio glosses over it though. According to IAFD Spalding Gray appeared in six porn films between 1972 and 1978. (Sometimes credited as Rick Carson, Spaulding Grey, or Victor Alexander) At least two of these roles were non-sexual, but I know he did appear in one hardcore sex scene in Maraschino Cherry. His porn career is especially noteworthy because it didn't stop him from becoming a critically acclaimed playwright/actor - with guest starring roles on wholesome sitcoms like The Nanny.
His porn career is supposedly well-documented in one of his books, but I think he might've fudged some of the details. Here's an interview where he says he did one movie in 1976. His IAFD listing says he did more than that.
So does anyone know of any reliable sources that could clarify this?Reelm (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spalding Gray 

message: The WP page for XCritic was deleted. To avoid any COI issues I'm not going to re-add or revise it. Which is one of the main reasons it was removed. I'd submit to this project that XCritic.com is notable: Don Houston, one of the most influential reviewers in adult is on staff, we are quoted and featured in trade pubs like AVN and XBiz, we're quoted on box covers... And more.  Again I leave it up to other people here to look at that, but I do think it deserves another stab through the proper WP process. Gkleinman (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  XCritic 

message: I've created this new article, and would appreciate editors' evaluation of its notability. It seems to be on approximately the same level as Milena Velba.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 23:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have concerns that some of the sources I've used are not reliable, but having said that being a Guinness record holder is definitely a claim to notability.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a Guinness record holder alone usually isn't enough to establish notability, but I think the newspaper and talk show coverage just about clinches it. There are some very dodgy sources in the article though. Epbr123 (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rachel Aldana]] 

message: History of erotic depictions has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Zantastik talk 09:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR of History of erotic depictions 

message: Anyone interested in creating a WikiProject Pornography userbox for display on user pages?--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And yes, I wouldn't be ashamed to have it on my userpage, before anyone asks.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox? 

message: The mentioning of copyleft images on the frontpage is incorrent. Copyleft refers to licenses that require derivative works to be equally free, while evidently is meant a "free license". -- Bryan (talk|commons) 14:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyleft/Free 

message: I think that we need to redo this section.  It is an extremely conservative interpretation of WP:BLP and shows a misunderstanding of what the word contentious means.  In short, contentious means inciting an arguement.
WP:BLP does not require that real names of pornographers be sourced.  It only requires that real names be sourced if there is possibility of inciting arguement based on the real name.
Also, all IMDB suggested edits are editor-reviewed--IMDB isn't a wiki.  I think we're misreprenting IMDB on here, because it's relatively hard to vandalize IMDB.
Section reprtinted below for convenience:
Real names of performers
If the birth name of a performer is being added to an article, note that per WP:BLP we must ensure that it is sourced from reliable sources and it is equally clear what should happen if the source is not reliable:
:"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." (emphasis original) 
This creates a problem with respect to the Internet Movie Database, as it is not what can be considered reliable. The problem with the "biography" page on IMDB is that anyone can add information to it. As a consequence, it is entirely possible for someone to "vandalize" the IMDB page by adding a random name to the biography page, then turn around and use IMDB as a source for adding the name to Wikipedia.
Fredsmith2 (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, and I can understand that, but it doesn't change my request for this section to be updated.  We're really misinterpreting WP:BLP with this section.  Perhaps if we want to continue to quote it, we should change WP:BLP to be consistent with your previous statement, adding a section on real names for people who operate under a pseudonym.  We need to operate wikipedia according to how the policies are now, not how we want them to be or how we're guessing they will be in the future. Fredsmith2 (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real names of performers section 

message: Whoever previously deleted the XCritic page did so with some extremely disparaging remarks about me, the site I used to run and XCritic. The short term solution was to create a new XC page. This is not the best answer because of obvious WP:COI. I submit to the WP Pornography Project that XCritic is notable and deserves some sort of entry in WP.  I think the best answer is going to be for someone else to re-author that page. My entry is really meant as a placeholder for Google to purge it's current cached page. If you'd like to see the issue here's a link to the Google cashed page.  Thanks. Gkleinman (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify here: the admin who deleted the page had nothing to do with the defamatory comments on a version of the page created by an unconnected user. As I understand it, Google's cache will be purged on the next crawl anyway, whether the page is deleted or a new page replaces it. The only issue is whether adequate independent, published sources can be found to show that XCritic is notable. Gwernol 18:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Not a solution at all; and you know it. The page was already deleted; and during google's next crawl the "libellous" page would have vanished from the cache. Recreating your COI laden non-notable page is not a solution and I have to admit I think you know this. If it's a problem take it up with goggle, don't use wikipedia for your self promotion. --Blowdart | talk 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh and just to note googling for xcritic doesn't even have the cached page appear within the first 5 pages of results. So the problem is pretty minor. --Blowdart | talk 20:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: No, there are several members of XRCO (or the organizations they represent) that don't have articles due to notability issues. These include even publications like adam film world and websites like adultdvdtalk. The key is non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources beyond press releases according to WP:WEB. The problem with pornography is that most coverage comes from adult press like *AVcough* don't have a sterling reputation for veracity or independence. Give it some time. Vinh1313 (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there solid examples of coverage of notworthy adult outlets outside of the standard trades (AVN & XBiz)? It seems like these two are the arbiters of notability in the space. Especially an article that isn't just a rehash of a press release. Gkleinman (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Best example is WantedList whose notability was clearly established because the company was extensively written about by Wired and AsianWeek. The fact the company also won awards didn't hurt. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  XCritc 

message: There's a discussion going on at Template talk:Female adult bio about the removal of weight data and maybe others. Input from others would be appreciated. Dekkappai (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template talk:Female adult bio 

message: A speedy-delete tag has been placed on :Template:User Pornography because it's not being used.  Use it or lose it, people!  (If it's not worth using, that's fine too.  But there were at least two prior calls for a User Template, so one was created.) - Tim1965 (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's at least one similar userbox: User:UBX/porn. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy-delete for Template:User Pornography? 

message: 
Someone added a slew of pornographic films to the film series lists. However a lot of them have no articles. I am not sure if this fall under your project, but here is the list, wiki linked and ready to have articles written. It is transcluded from my user space, but feel free to edit that list whenever you want. All of the film series titles links are already made with (film series) appended to them. If you want me to, I can move this into your project space as a start for a film list. Hope this helps your project. - LA @ 13:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this list going to be used, or can I just delete it as no work will be done to write these articles? - LA @ 14:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pornographic film series 

message: The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Category:Jewish porn stars might be of interest to other members of this WikiProject. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Jewish porn stars]] 

message: Boys in the Sand is under reassessment for Good article status.  Discussion of the recent nominations are on the article's talk page and the reassessment discussion may be found here. Otto4711 (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boys in the Sand 

message: This statement has been used by various editors to delete filmographies. 
I now feel this has reached a disruptive level where edit warring and hard feeling have been nurtured as a result of what seems to be an arbitrary number - six. Although the intent of this may have been laudable wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so space is not much of a concern. Nor is there a common sense element, if an article lists ten films, for instance, do we really need to delete four of them "to be fair". I feel this guideline is well-meaning but deeply flawed. It also seems to me to be sexphobic, that is, against pornography as an art form. Instead of, like every other genre, articles treated on a case-by-case basis we are setting a guideline for all films in the genre. And that guideline is being used to delete useful content on articles. If an article lists "too many" films there are ways to address that to encourage a more thoughtful approach. Frankly I don't see a problem until a list is simply huge beyond helpful which I still feel should be addressed in better ways than simply deleting most of it. What I have been seeing is an editor deleting, by guess as to which ones to keep, most of a filmography with little to no regard to the subject. Which of their films is notable? What if they/their studio/the director didn't apply for the appropriate award? With nothing but the title of a film they guess which six to keep. On one deceased porn bio the 10-15 films was trimmed to 6. I think we can do better. Using the above guideline as a building block perhaps we can find a way to rewrite this a bit. I don't support any arbitrary number and see little issue with full filmographies with few caveats. For instance, perhaps listing all the original films with a note that many were recycled into "best of" or other compilations. Any thoughts? Benjiboi 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. My thoughts are that the word "Encyclopedic" (among many others) is consistently abused at Wikipedia to mean its exact opposite. " Encyclopedic" in my dictionary, means, "comprehending a wide variety of information; comprehensive". Wikipedia's guidelines themselves state, "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship, are encouraged..." Dekkappai (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, a more elegant solution would be to develop a guideline on ways to deal with larger lists rather than censor in any way those who don't have "hundreds" of films. Is listing 30 films that big of a deal? And if we don't know which have gotten awards, is their first, best, etc. then are we really the authorities to determine which 6 of the 30 should represent their career? Maybe a better approach is to develop some ways to address what size list is too long and how to address issues of a lengthy filmography. Benjiboi 19:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are numerous ways and frankly we do have honkin' great long lists on many articles and possibly that is the best way. For instance, we are likely to have the only objective treatment of the material because we aren't reviewing to boost sales in some way just stating it exists. Also on at least one article I'm dealing with, which frankly every detail is scrutinized, the number of films is disputed; was it 12 over over 30 and what do we do about compilations and "best of"s. I think there is room to manage all the concerns and even make suggestion on how to treat filmographies with respect to the many issues raised here already. Benjiboi 02:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "we are likely to have the the only objective treatment of the material because we aren't reviewing to boost sales in some way just stating it exists"... what, compared to IAFD? I am skeptical that any article has anything beyond a regurgitation of IAFD for the straight side. Not sure what's going on the gay end. Vinh1313 (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I'm going to retract that statement since I understand the biases of IAFD although I don't think wikipedia can be any more objective than what's available out there. Vinh1313 (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, Benjiboi is referring to me as the one being "disruptive" and not using "common sense." Also, I guess I'm a "sexophobe," which is news to anyone that knows me. Adding a long list of titles doesn't make the article encyclopedic. I've seen so many articles that have no references and contain little biographical information. Adding titles to some of these articles doesn't make them any better. Instead of arguing about adding more movie listings, try correcting and adding to the information that is already there? The only thing I'm doing is following this project's guidelines, not being "disruptive." If the guideline is changed so that all movies are listed, then that's fine. Feel free to add those 100 movies listings to poorly written and mostly unreferenced articles. Until then, I'm going to abide by the WP:XXX guidelines. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually let's keep the focus on the issue, and frankly, as may be evident, this has been an issue in the past and is still a source of conflict but either of us started editing on these articles, so finding some solutions is likely in everyone's best interest. For the record, I'm generally opposed to deleting content for the sake of simply trimming because there is "too much". I'm hoping that we can find some ways to guide those who write and edit these articles that not only makes sense but applies policy fairly. The end goal is to have better written articles and I remain unconvinced that referring to an artist's filmography on IAFD (or elsewhere) would be upheld at FA and it seems to suggest us telling our editors to correct information over there and we'll link to it. As far as I'm concerned IARD remains a good source for generalized information but might not be the best for full filmographies. As for your stated concerns I agree that all articles should be sourced and well-written, full agreement there but articles develop organically and by concensus, they grow a bit here and someone adds an infobox there and every once in a while a complete makeover takes place. Let's find ways to work together so that these articles improve. Banjiboi 18:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisiting the "six rule" 

message: Hello,
there are currently 47 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of  and may be slightly outdated.)
I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability. 
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, offhand, I'll note that Angelica Bella was winner of a 1993 Hot D'Or award, which means she meets the notability criteria established by this project. Megan Leigh got quite a bit of mainstream media attention as the result of her suicide (albeit, less coverage than Savannah or Shauna Grant, who suffered similarly tragic fates). And Jana Miartušová and Zsanett Égerházi (better known as Nella and Sandy, respectively) are very significant performers in the girl/girl porn genre. The articles need to be fleshed out better to establish the notability of these individuals, though, I agree. I'm not sure if A Vindication of the Rights of Whores falls under the scope of this project, but I will note that it was a milestone in the literature of sex worker rights and I think should be considered notable on that basis. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pornproject: Articles of unclear notability 

message: There seems to be a user that goes by the handle, User:Xhy20, that likes to splice his own unverified opinions about Luscious in front of a already existing citation. I've been reverting him but he's now engaging in a revert war under an ip address. Oh be on the look out for any future citation splicing. I may have to ask for a semi-protect. Vinh1313 (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Luscious Lopez]] 

message: I had created a list of pornographic film series based on the additions of them on the various film series lists. Almost all of the films need articles as do the series. I would like to move it to your project here to get it out of my user space and get people to actually do something with it. - LA @ 18:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it is within the scope of our project. However the supermajority of the videos are probably not notable under WP:MOVIE so that explains the lack of articles. I don't know what else to tell you. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where to move the list would help me out a bit? Do you all just want it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/List of pornographic film series or something like that? - LA @ 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, of course. Sure, we can do that. I'll just post a link from the main project page. Go ahead and move it to get it off yours. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: It is all yours to do with what you think is best. - LA @ 00:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Pornographic film series - does this project want it or not? 

message: You may want to keep a close eye on your articles after this --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 15:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "A Free Press for a Free People." Now who's up for a good book-burning?!... Dekkappai (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal Watch 

message: The article for :Dick Nasty was gutted and then proposed for deletion over BLP concerns (WP:BLPN#Dick Nasty) after one editor added a lot of negative material sourced from Luke Ford. A Feb. 2008 version was less contentious but largely unsourced. The article is now a stub. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dick Nasty? The race-car driving guy with that snickering mutt? Surely he's notable... :-) (But seriously-- check out all the sourcing at those two cartoon articles, and then tell me there's no double-standard at Wikipedia...) Dekkappai (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but remember that articles on cartoon characters don't have to follow WP:BLP or need as many citations, as the television programmes themselves are sources. Epbr123 (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Television programmes are sources? But DVDs, videos and magazines are not? Dekkappai (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those can be used as sources as well. Epbr123 (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, question of sources aside, the point was that a totally unsourced article-- as both of those cartoon articles are-- would surely come up for blanking and/or deletion, were it on a less mainstream U.S. pop-culture subject-- whether living, dead or inanimate. Dekkappai (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's because everyone knows sources for these exist, without even having to look for them. Epbr123 (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Everyone" being whom? My Korean in-laws have never heard of these characters. Maybe they'd like to see some proof that they're not hoax articles... But you're saying English-Wiki works under the assumption that everyone knows every trivial aspect of U.S. pop-culture is worthy of an article, and gives these subjects a free pass. No sourcing necessary. On the other hand, a Korean children's TV series that has been running for decades-- Ppo Ppo Ppo for example-- goes article-less, and would have to be very well-sourced to stave off an instant AfD after creation....  Non-Anglo/U.S. subjects don't have this automatic assumption of "notability"-- because we think, "sourcing in non-English... Does it even exist???" Thanks, Epbr123, I think you've just made my point. Dekkappai (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Although, on the other hand, Epbr123... If you're saying lack of sourcing indicates everyone knows the subject is notable, how about the next time an article on a Japanese erotic actress comes up for deletion, I point to the unsourced Japanese Wiki-article as evidence that she's so notable "everybody" knows the sourcing is out there, in Japan... We could call it the "Epbr123 Defence." Dekkappai (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dick Dastardly article would never be AfDed, despite being unsourced, as most English-language Wikipedians would know that the article is able to be sourced. This wouldn't be the case for articles on subjects not well-known to English-language Wikipedians. This doesn't mean there are harsher rules for Japanese subjects, as the notablity criteria is the same for all subjects, regardless of country. Although, it is harder to prove the existence of sources on the more obscure subjects. Epbr123 (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've come across AfDs like Han (cultural). Picture Blues being put up for AfD. Multiply that by three, and then you have the absurdity of that. It means that subjects unknown to Anglo-phone editors are regarded more harshly than those that are known. And subjects known to editors here tend to be U.S. pop-culture. That's not good for Wikipedia, at least not in my book. Dekkappai (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Han is not U.S. pop-culture is what probable led to it's AfD, but the fact that the AfD resulted in a keep shows that the process is fair overall, and that there isn't a big problem here. Epbr123 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I almost forgot a Rimsky Korsakov opera article I started which was put up for deletion within five minutes of its creation. No, this does NOT mean that AfD is working. This means it is a drain on Wikipedia's time. AfD results in articles and images on perfectly valid subjects being routinely unfairly deleted here, and when they are not, still editors' time is wasted defending absurdly-nominated articles from deletion and then reproducing the work some other editor did when the article or image is re-created. This is not an inclusionist/deletionist difference, as you once portrayed it, since you have probably created over a thousand stubs by now. This is a procedural difference. I say that AfD, as it is practised-- to delete articles on subjects of which one does not approve, or of which I have never heard-- is harmful to Wikipedia. AfD should be used to delete hoaxes and vanity pages. Period. Heresy, I know... Dekkappai (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dick Nasty 

message: Could somebody knowledgeable please clean up/expand Tania Russof? For example, the filmography is too extensive, and the facts from the one main (Spanish) source are not referenced properly. Many thanks! —Zalktis (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tania Russof 

message: Just want to give everyone a heads-up on this discussion on Jimbo's talk page about the measurements on the various articles. Jimbo's comments on the matter: "In my opinion, virtually all such statistics should be removed with extreme prejudice as being from unreliable sources." Tabercil (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics in the articles 

message: Another relevant discussion to the group: Porn actors' birth names at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing BLP concerns - Tabercil (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like the discussion is fueled more by grudges between editors. I'm really amused by the notion of obtaining real names by requesting COPPA filings suggested by an editor. Besides the fact that it's WP:Original Research, COPPA doesn't apply to this issue. Vinh1313 (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real names in articles 

message: Images by Luke Ford are apparently being deleted from Commons as copyvio for lack of permissions at OTRS. The image links are currently being removed from the articles. • Gene93k (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images by Luke Ford 

message: Currently, 726 of the articles assigned to this project, or 39.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of .) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles flagged for cleanup 

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme