Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 1

message: I moved the biography template to the Templates section and added  to the infoboxes.
Penis size was the only non-trivial measurement I could come up with, even if the data on that is usually very unreliable. If anybody else has an idea, just edit it accordingly.
I guess it'll get interesting if we ever add an infobox for transexual porn stars o_O Ashmodai 09:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

message: All of the male porn stars have been moved out of :Category:Porn stars into :Category:Male porn stars. Does anyone know how to transfer the female porn stars into a new "Femele porn stars" category en masse, or does it have to be done in each article? Or, is there a way to rename Category:Porn stars to Category:Female porn stars, then it would be straightforward to re-create Category:Porn stars and transfer the articles and sub-categories that should be there back in. Zeromacnoo 18:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Warning: I am not an expert on Wiki movement, but I think you can hit move and it will move it to a new name category.  --Noitall 21:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
You need to manually edit each article, sorry, or you can create a bot (computer software) to do it for you and ask a bureaucrat for bot permissions. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization

message: When I came up with the template, the field was more or less meant for the actress' personal sesxual orientation -- not what kind of work she did on screen.  However, without adding further complication to the template, how about doing something like: Bisexual (acting), Heterosexual (personal) -- as demonstrated on the field to the right. (Note: I ripped the female adult bio code from Jenna Jameson, so the above is just an example -- not a fact.)  This removes the need to edit the template, and thus edit any articles that may be using it at this time. Thoughts, questions, concerns? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How would you classify girl doing masturbation only? As asexual? what about doing outercourse with B and oral sex with G? Hetero- bi- or homosexual? Still what he/she performs is information of the biggest value for the reader. User:Kro 00:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should change the term used then as per Kro's suggestion above. Instead of "Orientation", we could use "Performs with:" or something similar. Olessi 17:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original meanings and so forth... 

message: Firstly, I have no idea why I'm here.  I don't like porn or porn stars really... uhhh.  So.  Right.  The categorization sucks a lot.  I have made :Category:Porn stars by nationality to house the nationalities.  We need to develop a structure of categories.
* :Category:Porn stars by nationality
* :Category:Porn stars by ethnicity
* :Category:Porn stars by genre
* :Category:Porn stars by production company
Something along those lines.  Also, ethinicty national lines need to be straightened out. gren グレン 01:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: Hi there!
First of all, thanks a lot for this project, as the porn topics really needed to be categorize.
I do understand that you prefer "porn stars" to "porn actors/actresses", but imho porn performer would be even better, since it's the most accurate term and it's also very common, even by those concerned - see all the award shows, events, databases (iafd) etc.
The term "porn star" somehow implies that every performer working in the industry is a 'star'. It's only a commercial thing. Belladonna is a porn star, but Yexes Dine isn't one, yet they're both porn performers.
What do you think?
Magicstrip 01:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Actor" is more established as a term as this is about people acting in movies, even though they don't tend to be casted for their Shakespearean qualities. Porn actor thus works. Pornographic performer would be overly PC, but I don't think it's as accurate or common. Ashmodai 09:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, all these terms -- erotic actress, porn star, and pornographic performer -- are all bloated in some way, shape or form.  Unfortunately, the inaccurate term "porn star" seems to be common place, and as Wikipedia tends to identify something by how it is more commonly known, "porn stars" just seems to be the term we've used to identify pornographic performers.  However, I don't believe that this is a serious issue as, in my view, I believe that there are other things that require attention other than semantics.  Just my two cents. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Hi Em79! You've given me something to think about; performer is a more generic term and your comments make sense.  By the way, welcome to the project!  Feel free to add yourself to the list of contributors. You don't need permission. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Porn performer

message: As always, there are editors who seek to delete WIkipedia articles on porns tars on the basis of "non-notability". Are there any precedents on what makes a porn star notable or non-notable? Currently, there is a tag on Dex Brown (porn star), which is otherwise a fine stub article. I fear that without proper support, it will be easy for deletionists to begin undoing the work of may editors just because they don't thinnk that articles on porn stars belong on Wikipedia. Zeromacnoo 23:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For notability on porn stars, you can see how many movies the person in question hs been in.  Typically, the IAFD and IMDB are good places to start.  Anything within the 100 range seems to stay.  Moreover, if you could find anything that would cement notability (say a controversey surrounding the person in question or some other relevant news item), that would probably help out as well. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for repsonding. Unfortunately, the 100-film standard not a very useful standard for gay porn. I think that there would be very few -- if any -- gay porn stars who have appeared in over 100 porn films. Since the market is smaller than for straight porn, I don't think there is room for that many movies with the same guy over hte relatively short span of the typical gay porn star's career. Thanks anyway. Zeromacnoo 23:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  If anything, this conversation proves that standards should not be universally applied, and instead applied depending on the subject at hand. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the links Schizombie.  The issue is that there still isn't a criteria for porn stars. The discussions seem to be very spirited then fizzle out into nothingness.  No one acts on what's been discussed, primarily because we run into this no-consensus problem.  Perhaps it is time for a formal proposal on inclusion of porn stars? I would be willing to write one up, if people are willing to discuss the issue. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 14:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be worthwhile.  I was surprised by the remarks at N (p) that porn stars are not draws, which I disagree with; I wonder if some discussion on why preserving information about (at least some) porn stars and porn movies is important.  Finding some things that have been published on that question might be useful, if possible. Esquizombi 15:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: There is a situation over at Angela Devi, in which the woman may have died. I say "may" because there does not appear to have been any coverage in offical press, so the assertion is based on a briefly-posted web announcement and private emails, including a correspondence I had with her webmaster which convinced me. Devi was a stage name. Apparently there are a number of rumors going around on forums about the circumstances. If anyone from this project can find a more reliable source source for this information, or provide a better perspective, then I'd appreciate it. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I have drafted a propsal on defining notability for pornographic performers. Any feedback, whether in the form of comments or suggestions, would be appreciated.  Thanks! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability proposal 

message: Matthew Rush (porn star) is one of the biggest names in gay porn right now, but the article, which is well-written and properly linked and categorized, has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Rush (porn star). The only motivation appears to be prudishness. Zeromacnoo 10:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prudishness-motivated AfD

message: Anyone disagree?
: I disagree. Look at Brandy Alexandre, kind of a sad story. Heck, look at Brooke Ashley - hard to imagine a more sad story. But I haven't read them all. If you find articles that look like puff pieces, tag them  or  and/or post about them here, and we'll clean them up to be more neutral point of view. AnonEMouse 12:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also disagree. However, since you bring up the question, are we to assume that you came across articles that you feel are PR pieces? If so, could you please provide us with the articles, so that we have some examples to work with? We would very much appreciate it! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 16:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Most the entries sound like PR pieces

message: The first time the List of Perfect 10 models was put up for deletion and received several quick votes against it because some didn't know that Perfect 10 referred to a magazine.  Fortunately, enough people chimed in to "keep."  Now it's nominated again.  Even though over 40 models are linked to their own Wikipedia entries, the claim is made that almost none of them are notable!  
The worst part, though, is that some are saying that since an un-named model told someone in an e-mail that she didn't want to be listed, the WHOLE list should be deleted!  Not only should an entire list not be deleted for that, but if successful, the same argument can be made to delete any other adult oriented list.  Please voice your opinions on this AfD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Perfect 10 models (second nomination) --Alsayid 21:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the sane course of action would be to remove that model from the list... as I've indicated in my vote on the AFD. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 02:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another hasty AfD 

message: I don't believe these categories have anything to do with porn or this project - and should be removed:
*:Category:Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people 
*:Category:LGBT actors
::Tertiary7 06:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, according to the descriptions of both categories, both can apply to biographical articles on people on Wikipedia. They should be carefully used, but when used correctly I don't see the issue that you bring up. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 03:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "For sexual orientation" 

message: Are you certainly sure Paris Hilton qualifes as a porn star; yes, she has created a celebrity sex tape, but I believe it was leaked. I don't see Colin Farrell being listed here... Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the 1 Night in Paris article: the tape was originally leaked, but eventually authorized. So I can see calling her a porn star. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paris Hilton

message: I am thinking that the AFDB link is redundant, and commerical.  The IAFD is pretty comprehensive, and has less advertising.  Your thoughts?  Oldcritter 4:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've personally felt this way as well... It does seem far more commerical than the IAFD and IMDB. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 15:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Commercial" doesn't bug me. I've found several times that the site with the most information on an erotic performer was the Excalibur Films / Adult Porn Star Mall site, which is even more commercial than the AFDB. (Most recent case in point: Taija Rae - Excalibur Films site - compare to much skimpier LukeIsBack, IAFD, or  AFDB sites) Low on information bugs me, but the actual commercialism of the AFDB is relevant; it is showing a lot of video cover images that the performer appeared in. I would argue that is actually useful. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a good point there - it does have it's value, and all the databases have sales links to one degree or another.  I guess for me it is a question of what the primary purpose of the DB and how it relates to the WP policy. Unless there is a consensus to drop the link, then I am OK with leaving it be. Oldcritter 21:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, what does it matter if there is information for the article? Brjatlick 03:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: There are many porn stars considered exotic because of mixed race features, usually Asian and American or Asian and European. Tera Patrick is the best current example I think, and there has been dispute over whether Kascha Papillon is one as well. Also, Nautica Thorn and Kristara Barrington (most of whom we conventionally label as Asian). There should be a category for "Mixed-race exotic porn stars" or at least for "mixed-race" porn stars. Do you think so? Brjatlick 04:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed race exotic porn stars 

message: Acordding to the guidelines on this page, it is acceptable to claim fair use for DVD covers images illustrating the article on the person depicted on the cover. Is that really inline with Wikipedia Fair Use policy? According to my interpretation of WP:FAIR#Images, such images should only be used when critical comentary on the work (the movie, not the performer) is being made. Probably, the rationally is the same used in fair use counterexample #7. --Abu Badali 21:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it isn't inline with WP:FAIR, I'll remove the guideline on covers. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 00:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:FAIR is a guideline, not policy.  I think that the use of low resolution cover art is fair use, as it does not devalue the intellectual property of the maker; indeed quite the opposite - it could be advantageous to them to have the cover displayed here. Has there been an instance where an adult studio has objected to the inclusion here of their cover art?Oldcritter 05:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we decide that this use is acceptable, we should not go against the broader guidelines. We could, instead, explain or arguments there and chage the guideline as a whole. I don't think it would be good to make porn movies a special case. --Abu Badali 05:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to concur with this. While WP:FAIR is a guideline, do note that fair use is part of United States copyright law, which superscedes any Wikipedia rule or guideline when it comes to these things. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 16:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read the guidlines, and the discussion behind them, and compared them to the article fair use.  I believe Wikipedia is being overly conservative with regards to media covers.  The use of a movie cover to illustrate an article on a performer violates none of the four critical principles defining fair use.  I suppose we could try and persuade the rest of the community, but that is going to take a lot of effort from the (pages of) discussions I read.  My thought is that, until it becomes policy, we don't include covers on the acceptable use list, but on the other hand, lets not go plunging through every image or article deleting them until it is settled. Maybe we can come up with a weasly way of using the covers - perhaps including limited critical commentary on that particular movie (and how much would be enough?) to justify the image.  I am not real proud of that, but for a lot of performers, it will be that or no useable photo at all. Your thoughts? Oldcritter 00:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acceptable sources of fair use photos 

message: : OK, let me start with the ones that I think will be hard to dispute:
* Traci Lords - moderately important star in her own right, but her underage scandal made her a legend
* Jenna Jameson - most popular currently active star
* John Holmes - the iconic male star, death from AIDS also says something about the effect of that disease on the industry
* Linda Lovelace - star of the single most famous porn movie, became noted anti-porn activist
"Second rank" (also important, but possibly disputable as most important)
* Ron Jeremy - male star, always second to Holmes during career, but now widely appearing on media outside the industry
* Danni Ashe - the first mainly-Internet star
* Marilyn Chambers, Bambi Woods, Seka - possibly iconic classic female performers
* Deep Throat, Debbie Does Dallas, The Devil in Miss Jones - movies, rather than stars, so arguably outside the scope of this project
* Hugh Hefner, Bob Guccione, Larry Flynt - pornographers, rather than porn stars, so arguably outside the scope of this project
AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A very good list. Also, let's not forget the Mitchell brothers and Suze Randall. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 00:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon E Mouse's list

message: I would like to start a page on Katrina Ko.  I have access to some references that may be hard to get.  If someone starts a stub, I can add info.  I am not certain how to start a brand new page. I don't know how to add the usual box on the right or the stuff at the bottom of the page.
If you want to help but don't know anything about Katrina Ko, just start a stub with the following information.  "Katrina Ko is a female actress credited for doing pornographic movies.  She is Canadian of Asian decent.  She is credited for the movie: Lingerie".  I'll take over from there.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.43.102 (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately "references that may be hard to get" are not a good way to write an article. Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable, meaning that readers should be able to check that an article is correct. You need references that have been published by reliable sources. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assistance requested in starting a page

message: Can we ban links to pay sites, other than the official site of the star? Or is there maybe such a ban already in place? Sick of people adding links to pay sites to articles, especially sites that have nothing to do with the star except they have maybe a gallery or use her name to draw customers! Brjatlick 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list needs to be sent up to the Wikipedia developers, since I believe they have ultimate control over that. We should probably create a list of links to ban first prior to any communication with them, so as to help them make the most efficient use of their time. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 03:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I started editing, I felt that way, but it was pointed out to me that some commercial sites have information of use - the AFD was one example. Certainly, links to galleries and so forth are beyond the scope of this project, and should be removed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of links (see What Wikipedia is not), so I would Be Bold about removing them. Oldcritter 03:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a way to block the addition of some specific links that are added over and over, or added to different pages? Or is it worth the time even, I guess the linkers could just change web addresses? Brjatlick 06:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ban pay links? 

message: Just a short heads-up that the site adult-pornstar-mall has been listed here as being spam. As well, Naconkantari has gone through and pulled a lot of those links out. Everybody might want to double check that:
# all of the links to that site are indeed gone from Wikipedia
# that we don't lose anything by that mass purge. For instance, the page at a-p-m for Belladonna hosted a pair of informative interviews (which I was able to find elsewhere on the net).
Dat's all....   Tabercil 02:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you... I've fixed the link. Tabercil 11:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I noticed also, and asked for it to be un-blacklisted. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#www.adult-pornstar-mall.com Seems like my wish was granted, and it's back to being allowed. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems to be un-blacklisted now. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 04:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be allowed! It is as useful a resource as anything out there, and every star should have this link. That's just my opinion. Brjatlick 05:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adult pornstar mall 

message: Since we have been contacted by the 1.0 editorial team, I would just like to say that I encourage all participants to begin work on brining the articles on the list to begin work on enhancing the articles, namely Jenna Jameson, Linda Lovelace, Traci Lords and John Holmes, as they are the ones that have been identified as high priority for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. I am going to begin working on a critique of the Jenna Jameson article at Talk:Jenna Jameson, since that's probably the most currently important article on there. If you wish to help, please visit the featured article guidelines and peer review to learn what we need to do in order to get the articles up to snuff. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 05:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 1.0 prep work 

message: I have begun a discussion on Fair Use regarding what I believe are the overly restrictive WP guidelines on movie cover art.  I would encourage those with an opinion on the issue to make it known there.Oldcritter 23:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to weigh in on the Cover Issue

message: Does someone of you want to expand this article? It is in danger of deletion because South is not deemed notable enough. I think he is, and the article should be expanded a bit. I could try, but I'm not a native speaker of English, and preferrably someone with better language skills than me should do it. Regards --Rosenzweig 16:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked around and added two good sources, a Hustler article and a 60 Minutes transcript. That's pretty notable - it won't get deleted now. Please feel free to expand it, and others will fix your grammar when needed. Be Bold. I understand he won an AVN Award, and was the agent who recruited Traci Lords... AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jim South]] 

message: Hi, I am trying to provide sources for persons included on this list. Including porn stars who have, or died of, aids. It's quite difficult find reliable sources for that. Usually the only sources I could find were forums or IMDB, which are both not the best sources. Does anyone here know another place/or book where I could find that kind of information? Garion96 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of HIV-positive people 

message: I just wanted to let you know that the Biography WikiProject has been reorganized and we wanted to see if you guys were interested in merging with us? We've reorganized it so that it's more like the Military history project with task forces for the specialized areas. One of the task forces we could create could be Actors and Directors-- by merging with us and becoming a task force, you wouldn't lose anything! You'd keep your same page here, it would just be redirected to Actors task force (which we'd create) and you would continue as before, except that instead you'd also gain the benefits of being part of a larger project. We would give you a parameter to our Project banner (actors-task-force=yes) and a note would appear that says the article is a part of that task force (see example on military history article), plus having peer reviews and collaborations, and being able to grade articles by class and importance so that the articles can be part of the WP:1.0 project and much more... Let me know what you think! If you are interested, you need to add your project to the task force vote we're currently having plange 16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo Wales has decided that the biographies of adult performers are to be treated differently than those of other public figures, with a higher standard of privacy (see Talk: Brandy Alexandre, so I don't see the point in folding the projects together.Oldcritter 16:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation 

message: I altered the description of these on the project page.  We need to be careful: images that promote a porn star are actually likely to NOT be Publicity photos as Wikipedia defines them.  Mangojuicetalk 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Use publicity photos 

message: I'm currently in the midst of a revert tug-of-war with an anonymous user and I'm looking for a third party view. The page in question is Eve Laurence, and the bone of contention is a link which :User:71.200.191.68 keeps adding in. The link is to Eve Laurence's "official fanlisting". He says: "She collaborates with it and it is an official fanlisting. I've got permission from Eve herself and she's contributed pictures for it. She wants to make sure her fans are getting what they need." (his comments on the Eve Laurence talk page). I say the listing is non-encyclopedic and constitutes linkspam. What does the peanut gallery say? Tabercil 01:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This peanut looked at the site, and it's not very useful (at least without registering). If it was useful (had interesting biographical information), then I would say to list it official or not, but the only thing that seems to be on in are a few pics. So for now I wouldn't add it - fansites with pics of dubious copyright status for porn stars are a dime a dozen. However, if you get actual proof that she is associated with the site, that might be an interesting tidbit in itself, and worth a sentence. So I'd ask for a Wikipedia:Verifiable reference. If she really is endorsing the site, ask her to post a link to it on her official site, saying she endorses it. If she does that, it will be interesting in itself, showing more fan interaction than most. If not, it's just another fan site. Even if she posts to it occasionally, that's not verifiable to be her - and, frankly, since the site has nothing on it, I wouldn't crack my shell over it. One peanut's opinion. AnonEPeanut (crunch) 06:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would delete it.   Wikipedia is not a collection of links, so even if it is "an official fansite", no harm is done by omitting it.Oldcritter 21:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More link talk 

message: I think we should remove the users that don't make pornographic edits for quite some time (User:AlexQ springs to mind). Also, I believe we should ask regular contributors to join via-user talk page. Does anyone oppose? Duane 11:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should divide the list into "presently active" and "presently inactive". People who may have contributed in the past shouldn't be excluded just because they don't contribute actively now. Other than that, I don't oppose contacting regular contributors who may be unaware of the project. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 16:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that's a great ideal :). Would you like me to make the list, or would you rather do it? Duane 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went ahead and did it myself. If you want to make changes, please don't hesitate to do so :). Duane 10:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Duane! :-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 20:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. - Duane 20:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non Contributors   

message: Could someone be kind enough to walk me through the use of , please? I know we're not supposed to subst: it, but how do you get the parameter "prompts" to display in the edit window? I'm sooooooo confused. I swear I've looked elsewhere and can't find any information about how templates with parameters such as these are supposed to be edited. Thanks.—Chidom talk  20:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit  is less user friendly than ; when I need to use it, I generally copy and paste in the example template from  and remove the letters "Fe". :-). Really. That seems to work for almost all of the parameters, though, unfortunately, the male template doesn't really use the AFDB and IAFD, those have to be entered separately. If someone knows templates and can bring Male to the level of Female, that would be much appreciated. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: smacks forehead::: Well, that makes sense! Thanks so much. To move things along, I was bold and lemmed  to update ; the one obstacle I can't seem to solve is that of the hyperlink captions not showing up unless there's data for the hyperlink parameter(s). (IMDB, IAFD, AFDB)
Help on making those parameters optional would be great; the template is much easier to use now. Thanks again.
(By the way, in case you're wondering about that red link up there, "lemmed" is past tense of a verb based on the actions of lemmings; i.e., following blindly. I find a reference to it here, but can't find much about it at all. Dare I say that I picked it up while hosting trivia games on an ISP that shall remain unnamed?)—Chidom talk  21:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I believe the  was derived from a really early version of the . I'll see what I can do to make the male adult bio template functional on par with its parent, as it were. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 22:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to use the Male adult bio template 

message: I just found out that the Adult Film Database links aren't as picky as they might seem. If you include the actor/actress's ID number, as long as there is any name after that, it finds the correct profile. So, for example, ...ActorID/94/Name/ yields the same return as ...ActorID/94/Victoria_Paris/.
I mention this as we might want to simply the Adult Male / Adult Female templates to only ask for the ID number and substitute in the "/Name" after whatever number is typed. Less data entry, less margin for error. I'm hesitant to mess with this sort of thing on the templates, anyone want to give it a whack? Shot? Try? Go?—Chidom talk  21:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting Discovery 

message: Check out the talk page for Category:Indian porn stars. I have put quite a few article requests there. It seems that the category is extremely short on articles, and has massive growth opportunities. (Aditya Kabir 17:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check out, please 

message: I'm pretty much a Wiki newbie, so don't know if what I am seeing going on is business-as-usual, or a user intentionally censoring Wikipedia. To me, anyway, it looks like the latter. A certain editor is systematically removing articles on Japanese porn actors/models. 
Editor is currently deleting Shoko Goto whom I happen to know is a very popular new actress/model, but who obviously does not meet the American standards of notability. This is just the type of model who belongs on a List of Japanese female porn stars. Coincidentally, this same editor had this list deleted in June. At the time he claimed, "That's what Categories are for. In fact there is a Category:Japanese_porn_stars." Since then, he has been systematically depopulating the category. 
The last item on the user's [discussion page shows he  has made a practise of this sort of underhanded way of deleting categories of which he does not approve. Investigating the user's other edits (here and here for example) shows a pattern of agressive reverting to get his POV, threatening other editors with 3-revert violation, and when engaged in discussion, refusing to see other views, engaging in bafflingly absurd logic, and threatening other editors with personal attacks when they address his edits. Personally, I do not wish to become involved in this sort of dialog. 
There should be a place for unbiased, non-commercial information on these models. Wikipedia could be just such a place, if not for this dishonest form of censorship, by applying an American test to models from other countries. Even as well-known (to those who know the subject) an actress/model as Kimiko Matsuzaka clearly fails to meet the American standards Wiki sets for porn star notability. I have considered writing an article on her, indeed any coverage of the Japanese actress/model area would be incomplete without a mention of her. But I know this would be a wasted effort, since this editor is happily progressing towards his apparent goal of erasing every name of every Japanese adult model from Wikipedia. 
Again, I am not saying every Japanese model needs to have her own article. That's what lists are for. The article Shoko Goto, with 26 movies to her credit in about a year, is clearly going to be deleted. And yet, since the list is deleted, 26 movies don't even allow her to be mentioned on a list. 
If the behavior of this editor is considered acceptable, Wikipedia should not even claim to be uncensored or plainly culturally biased, or that it even attempts to be so. Dekkappai 04:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is known as the "notability debate", I think, best described in this essay. In short, to keep the article, we need to show that verifiable sources consider the star notable. For people, this is generally the standards at WP:BIO, for porn stars specifically, usually WP:PORN BIO. All you need to do is show a few independent sources have written specifically about the star, and the article will be kept. This isn't a cultural issue - they can be Japanese articles. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback, AnonEMouse. I think there is something more than "notability debate" going on here however. I would even agree that not all Japanese model/actresses need stand-alone articles. That's why we had the List of Japanese female porn stars (saved in my workspace). However, the editor who is nominating these model articles for deletion also nominated that list for deletion. He first edited that extensive list of models who had no article (and probably did not need them), down to a list of only models who had articles and stated here that "This list really does not serve any purpose. That's what Categories are for. In fact there is a Category:Japanese_porn_stars." He is now systematically de-populating that category. It seeems to me to be an underhanded form of censoring Wikipedia of all Japanese models, not only their articles, but also even mentioning their names on a list. Dekkappai 17:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing deletion of Japanese model articles/lists 

message: The dating policy should be changed to simply using the Template:persondata. 24.126.199.129 12:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, according to Wikipedia:Persondata, "The addition of persondata will not affect the normal display of an article since the information remains hidden unless a user sets their user stylesheet to display it." So it doesn't take over the role of the dating policy, but can be used in addition to it. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? I thought it automatically put stuff in categories for you. Well, good thing I asked. Thanks for clarifying that. 24.126.199.129 04:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dating policy

message: I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I couldn't think of any better, so here's my question: Does anybody know how exactly the winners of the annual AVN Awards are selected, especially the person-related awards (performers, directors)? Who nominates persons? And who selects the winners? Is there a jury? Do AVN readers vote? Or is this solely at the discretion of the AVN staff? I looked around the net a bit, but couldn't find anything about this. Regards --Rosenzweig 18:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[AVN Awards]] nomination and selection procedure? 

message: There is a dispute over the validity of Sharon Mitchell's Ph.D degree on the talk page, and an anon keeps changing a sentence to assert that the Ph.D is not valid. Since I am not part of this wikiproject and would rather not violate WP:3RR, and since Sharon Mitchell was a porn star, I was wondering if someone from here could help resolve this. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 08:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sharon Mitchell]] 

message: Reading through everything, I was wondering if it's worth it to create the "Gay" and "Straight" sub-groups for the Porn stars project? Would it help to focus people's efforts, to deal with minor differences between categories, and make the respective workloads smaller? Or would it just start and endless division of subprojects: "Male vs Female Straight Porn Stars." "Bisexual Pornstars" "Gay for pay porn star project" etc. Jodyw1 03:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gay vs. Straight

message: Heads up folks. I've found that an as-yet-unknown number of porn star articles got speedy deleted by User:Centrx on September 17th, tagged as "A7" in the deletion logs (whatever that means). Known deletions included Kaitlyn Ashley and Juli Ashton both of whom met the notability criteria (the first for having over 100 films, the second for an AVN award). The Kaitlyn Ashley article has been resurrected, and I've asked for the Juli Ashton one to be revived. My concern is why those two got speedied and who else got articles pulled out at the same time.  Tabercil 19:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy deletes

message: The anti-porn star crusade continues on Wikipedia, with a number of AFDs currently underway for the likes of SaRenna Lee and Wendy Whoppers. Right now I'm in the lone voice in the wilderness supporting them. 23skidoo 14:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AFDs underway

message: Got an issue over some links and I thought I'd bring it up here for viewing by more eyeballs as well as general discussion. In the Raylene article, I'm currently in a discussion over the links that were placed in it, and one of the links was to an article on the AVN website. That link was pulled out by :User:Dalbury, citing that it was a commercial link as well as one that was not reliable. My concern is that if AVN is not considered a reliable link, considering that AVN is pretty much the trade magazine of the adult industry in North America, we're going to lose a lot of material. Should AVN be usable in Wikipedia considering it's "commercial"? Can it be considered reliable?? Tabercil 14:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AVN links 

message: This proposed guideline has been extensively used and referred to for its intended purpose, to simplify Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion, during the past five months, an average of more than every other day. It has simplified discussion, and made it less contentious. It has grown and reacted to discussion and the results of those AfDs; it reflects community practice, and is the sum of many points of view. It has been five months as a proposal. It is not perfect, but it is a lot better than nothing. I believe it is now time to mark it as a full fledged notability guideline, and subset of WP:BIO. 
Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)#Ready to become a notability criteria guideline, and help us reach consensus on marking it as such. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)]] as [[Wikipedia:Notability criteria|notability guideline]] 

message: Some logic flaw here: while it is nice that JBH has consented to the use of the CES 2003 photos on his website under a CC license, it seems to me that he is not the photographer, since he is on every one of these photos and there is a statement "various photographers". So can he license photos he did not take himself? --Rosenzweig 19:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  J. Bruce Howie photos 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the curious, we seem to be in two places, User:Badbilltucker/Culture_Directory#Films and User:Badbilltucker/Culture_Directory_2#Biography. From perusing Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/WikiProject, I think our listing, sad as it is, is correct - we don't do many formal reviews or collaborations, but we are still somewhat active. :-(. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. And, yes, every project is listed in all the "categories" (fields where there is more than one group) that it seemed to me that they qualify. B2T2 14:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory 

message: Me and :User:Chidom got into a debate about DVD covers - prompted by my pulling one out of the Desireé Cousteau and he put an absolutely beautiful post on my talk page on the issue. I'm putting the entire post here so more eyeballs will see it and also see if we can't kick-start some action on the topic:
:: Bet you thought I forgot about this, huh? Nope. From Template talk:Albumcover. 
::: "User:JYolkowski: If you want to use album covers in the artist's or single's page, write a paragraph about the album, and use the cover to illustrate that paragraph. There's probably no valid fair use rationale we could make to use the images for decorative purposes." 
:: This seems reasonable and would, I think, meet the fair use policy requirements. A more appopriate image for the article (or perhaps an additional image) might be that of the cover of the DVD "Pretty Peaches" since that is the film for which she won the ADFA award. It's a horrible-looking illustration of her rather than a photograph, but since ostensibly the main purpose of the image is to illustrate the DVD, I don't know of a work-around. I've uploaded the Pretty Peaches image and added it to the article, feel free to remove it. :Image:Desireé Cousteau on Pretty Peaches DVD cover.jpg. If you think it's too icky to use, or do wind up removing it from the article, just let me know and I'll put a speedy delete tag on it as the uploader. 
:: I've expanded the information about both DVDs given the limited information in the plot summaries I found (and referenced); I think this bolsters the case to be made for fair use. (You may or may not have figured out that straight porn isn't my area of expertise, but I do know how to go hunting!)
:: I also added a videography. It's nine films rather than six; she worked for 10 years and released films in only 9 of them. The two that are mentioned in the article are repeated in the videography solely to list the distributor and, in the case of Inside..., the director.
:: Additionally, I think DVD covers really are different than magazine covers. Think of the variety of topics and subjects in a magazine vs. the limited subjects of a DVD, recording, etc. With a much narrower focus, DVDs and other recordings aren't as related to magazines as I also assumed. (I was using the magazine cover rationale as well, and then really thought about it; I think there's a difference between recordings and publications in the way subject matter meets fair use, but it's just an opinion.) You may want to kick this information around on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Porn stars, it seems the use of DVD covers hasn't been decided there, either. Thanks.—Chidom talk  21:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD Covers 

message: has been removing MySpace templates for articles en masse using WP:EL as justification (presumably "Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself."). A quick glance through MySpace's "What links here" gives a multitude of celebrities who have links to their accounts- Ricky Martin, Beyoncé Knowles, Björk, Jennifer Lopez etc. There has been discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links#Official MySpace pages, but a definite policy has not been decided upon yet. Olessi 19:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I listed the celebrity examples to show that MySpace links exist for "non-porn" biography articles, and was wondering if the only reason they are being removed from porn biographies is because of higher standards for such articles. Most people discussing the inclusion of MySpace pages at Wikipedia talk:External links seem to agree that MySpace links should be included if it is the "official" website or if it offers relevant information not already listed in the article. As some porn stars seem to have "official" MySpace pages but not official websites, it is unclear to me if some porn stars should have MySpace links but not others. Because many of the removals have been connected with the subject of this noticeboard, I mentioned them here so the rest of the community can become involved in the discussion. Olessi 20:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MySpace 

message: Sigh... is there still a consensus that the guidelines we have filmographies for the adult actresses  is still good and valid (i.e., 6 films at most, with exceptions past that number in specific cases)? My problem is that I've seen full filmographies added to the Courtney Cummz and Alexis Malone articles, and I want to be sure I'm on solid ground before I cull them back as per our suggestions... Tabercil 22:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Leah Luv ... --LQ 23:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, leave the complete filmographies for now until a concensus can be reached.
Moved from Partial filmographies redux above:
Complete filmographies should always be used.  The argument against compete listings is simply another plot of the extreme conservatives who want to limit the amount of porn-related content on Wikipedia.  "Obscene" images cannot be uploaded, actors must be "notable" enough to merit an article, and now only "partial" filmographies are allowed.  When will the censorship end? Mactabbed 04:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I really wouldn't see a conservative (or any other) plot here.  Partial filmographies are the standard in all actors, not just porn stars.  For that matter, partial bibliographies are the standard in academics and writers.  Look, the main problem with complete *ographies in wikipedia is the impracticality / impossibility of policing them.  Any long list is difficult to police, because people simply won't be familiar with all the works.  So who can remove false titles, erroneous titles, duplicate titles with slightly variant names, and so on.  Imagine the no-compilations rule introduced above.  Not everyone is going to read the rules and understand "no compilations," and someone will add compilations.  But in a list of scores of works, people coming to the page de novo won't pick that out as a compilation.  And even people who monitor and police the work may not be familiar with it as a compilation.  In a list that purports to be "comprehensive", people are disinclined to remove errenous information because they're just not sure.  This is why wikipedia isn't a good place for "complete" filmographies.  Ideally, a complete filmography makes it easy for people to remove erroneous information as well as add in missing information.  If you want a complete filmography for a star, for instance, you should include enough information to describe and identify each work -- such as ISBN, sources, production date, description, time, distribution, and so on, so that people can realize that there are duplicates with different names, etc.  Hey, that's a resource like IMDB.  Filmographies in an pornstar page would be too long to be readily edited or managed. --LQ 12:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDB is not a reliable source of complete filmographies, for any sort of actor or actress, especially those who make pornography. Please see the discusssions at Partial filmographies and Partial filmographies redux above.—Chidom talk  00:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like IMDB.  In other words, a database dedicated to the purpose. --lquilter 15:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Filmographies, round three

message: This is the another step in our semi-insane goal of eventually getting a WP:P* article to Wikipedia: Featured article status. Please weigh in with advice on how to improve the article. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jenna Jameson has made Wikipedia:Good article status! Champagne and cigars all around! AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huzzah indeed! Now if we're feeling ambitious, I have a suggestion for the next person to tackle for GA status: Ron Jeremy. Jimbo Wales himself blanked the article down a week or so ago on basis on a complete lack of sources, and I've rebuilt the article as best I can with cites everywhere (and Jimbo left a note commending the rebuild job). As a result of all that, we have a solid basis from which to build on to get Ron up to GA class. Tabercil 20:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's on to the (hopefully) last step: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jenna Jameson - but it's not a sure thing, there is a lot of criticism, much based on writing quality. Any help would be appreciated - I've read the sentences so many times, I can't see anything wrong until someone points to specific issues. I promise to get to Ron Jeremy next. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Jenna Jameson/archive1]] 

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: I created an article for 21Sextury Productions in October, but it was deleted in November for non-notability. The sources used for the article were all from websites associated with the company, so we should use third party sources when possible. I found an AVN link; please list them here if more relevant articles are found. Olessi 21:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  21Sextury Productions 

message: Does this girl have a WP article? If not, is she notable enough for one? She's mostly in Big Tits Round Asses vids. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it. You want to look at Wikipedia: Notability (pornographic actors) for the notability guideline. Basically - news coverage, awards, that sort of thing. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link! Also, how would you go about finding her IMDB profile-type thing? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched on IMDB for "Big Tits Round Asses" and didn't find anything; I doubt she has a listing. Being listed on IMDB, however, is not a good criterion for having an article here, as is explained in the guidelines AnonEMouse referenced. Good luck.—Chidom talk  20:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware that IMDB != Notability; I was just curious on that one. Thanks for helping. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you search IMDB, you might be well advised to confirm that their search results are coming back with the full range of results. If I access IMDB anonymously and search for Debbie Does Dallas, the result it comes back with is a TV documentary called The Curse of Debbie Does Dallas as all the adult vids pulled out of the results. Tabercil 03:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can confirm that you have to register for an account and be logged in to see adult titles. There is a IMDbPro account available for a fee, but registering for a free account allows access to the adult titles if the account preferences are set to display them.—Chidom talk  07:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, and I have an account. It's still a pain in the who-zits to have to stop and check when you do a search. Tabercil 13:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've just taught myself to scan for a "(V)" next to a movie title. If there isn't one and I know I'm searching for a porn performer, something's wrong. One nice thing about IMDb, though, is that you have to specifcially log out of your account; otherwise you're logged in forever. I just leave myself logged in.—Chidom talk  01:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anna? 

message: Two articles were recently deleted under what I feel are somewhat questionable circumstances: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (3rd nomination). The first was nominated because it was "disgusting." The debate quickly changed to more cosmetically acceptable criteria for deletion, but the sense of moral disapproval remained in the "delete" argument. The consensus at the second discussion, at the article nominated for the third time, was clearly for keep, yet was deleted anyway. This action is being questioned here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers
Is this business as usual at Wikipedia? Can I search for articles of which I personally disapprove, and nominate them for deletion repeatedly until I get an administrator who shares my bias? (Not that I would ever do this, of course, since I have a firm belief in intellectual freedom.) Dekkappai 22:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be a trend: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayla Kleevage. (I don't even follow the American scene, and I've heard of her.) Dekkappai 22:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Morality is not a criterion for deletion, otherwise Adolf Hitler and the atrocities committed in WWII would be deleted as well. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True. And given the choice between boobs-- which seem to make some here so squeamish-- and war atrocities, I'll take the former. But to each his own. Dekkappai 01:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not an apt comparison ... in the one you're talking about the morality and worth of the list/article; in the other you're talking about the morality of the subject of the article.  The AFDs and CFDs are generally fairly critical of arts & entertainment fancruft, so the moral disapproval I think is (at least) as much about that as it is about the sex aspect. --lquilter 15:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this appropriate? 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Careful, Bill. Posting invites at porn talk pages can get you blocked permanently, without warning, even a month after the last such invitation. (see: User talk:Hexvoodoo) On the other hand, you can vandalize public pages repeatedly and get warnings galore before any action is taken... Guess it all comes down to your chosen subject, and the whim of the admin... Dekkappai 17:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Here's a conversation that would include the tightening of the infobox. Please chime in with your thoughts and ideas. Thanks. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 15:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female adult bio infobox restructure? 

message: With the intent of providing an organized structure, and a historical/cultural context to the articles and stubs on Japanese porn stars floating around on Wikipedia, I've been working on a Chronology of adult videos in Japan article, which I put up  yesterday. Everyone involved in WikiProject Porn stars is invited to take a look, and contribute help or suggestions for improvement. Regards to all. Dekkappai 01:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology of adult videos in Japan 

message: Hi. I've been out of the loop for a while so I don't know if you're "officially" a sub project of WP Biography now, or if you've just plonked yourself in "our" categories :) If you have officially joined forces that's great; however, I think to reduce template clutter on talk pages and for general ease of maintenance you ought to be sharing our template. We already share it to great effect with the WP Musicians and British Royalty wikiprojects. Please see Template talk:WPBiography for more info. --kingboyk 16:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's a good idea, as WPBIO has the rating/category system and all. Anyone opposed? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've suggested it at Template talk:WPBiography#pornstar-work-group. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Biography 

message: Is there a list of pornstar-related deletion discussions? I ask because:
#I know there's one for CVG, and it seems like a logical extension of a WikiProject.
#I've been commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianna Michaels (2nd nomination)
#Porn stars have their own standards of notability, and WikiProject Porn stars participants are probably the best judges of that.
#Porn star articles are at a higher risk (by my judgment, anyway) of being deleted than most other biographical articles.
—Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't. There should be. If you make one, and maintain it, it will be on my watchlist. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It'd have to be a community thing-- one person can't pay *that* much attention to AfD. However, I'll look into creating it. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course note that it won't merely get people showing up to say "keep per WP:PORNBIO" - some will be watching the page to say "delete per WP:PORNBIO". :-). But that's good too. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I realize that it goes both ways, and that it's a good thing :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this is an excellent idea, Disavian. I'm always afraid an article I'm interested in will be put up for deletion and removed before I even know it and have a chance to say anything in its defense. Porn-related articles are certainly prone to AfD. And, apparently, notifying interested editors about AfD's is frowned upon, because this may result in "vote-stacking" (though, as I understand it, an AfD is not a "vote" anyway). A deletion list would be more NPOV, since, as AnonEMouse pointed out, any editor, regardless of interest, would be able to monitor the list. I'll certainly help maintain the listings for articles in the Japanese area, and I'm pretty sure other editors would do the same with articles in their field of interest. Dekkappai 22:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've started an empty page here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Porn stars/Deletion. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  If someone could find a good place to list it on the project page, that'd be nice. Also, update it! :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion list? 

message: I'm trying to get consensus about usage the adjective "lesbian" and the noun "lesbianism" in the article Lesbianism in erotica and potentially head off an edit war between myself and User:Joie de Vivre. Basically, this user insists on very narrow usage of the words "lesbian" and "lesbianism" no matter what the context, restricting only to descriptions of self-identified "lesbians". It is my belief that "ordinary language" use of the word lesbian allows this term as a broad description of same-sex activity between women and that the phrase "lesbian sex" can be reasonably used to describe sex between bisexual women. I feel very strongly that English usage in Wikipedia should reflect generally accepted usage of the English language by the larger public and not usage that may be confined to a particular subculture.
Based on this, JdV had changed the title to "Sex between women in erotica" and rewrote the article to expunge nearly every instance of the word "lesbian". I think the results of JdV's edits were largely tendentious and clunky and have reverted them (though I've incorporated some of JdV's edits after reverting).
If you have an opinion on this, please weigh in at Talk:Lesbianism_in_erotica: Renaming_article. Iamcuriousblue 00:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lesbianism in erotica]] 

message: There's a full scale edit war right now at the Monique Alexander article, and yes, its between myself and User:Joie de Vivre. It seems that in addition to "lesbian", the word "contract girl" and "interracial" are considered highly offensive by this editor, in spite of the fact that they're standard terms in the porn industry. Please see Talk:Monique Alexander for more details.
This isn't even an article I'm particularly interested in beyond changing some pretty bowdlerized language that has been inserted into the article. If anybody would like to step in, please do. Iamcuriousblue 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Standard terminology in the porn industry does not necessarily equal the terminology we should use on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia does not use the terminology that would be used at a KKK meeting, either, regardless of how "standard" it is in that environment. Joie de Vivre 18:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Monique Alexander]]