Template talk:Infobox adult biography

message: This template was created by including all fields from  and . While I have included all the fields in the creations of this template, I do not believe all should be included. I support the future removal of questionable fields such as "natural bust" and "blood type". 
Note: Female adult bio used the word "photo" while Male adult bio used the word "image" for the same field. While this template suggests using the field "image", it is backward compatible with the "photo" field. Neitherday 15:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation as Merger

message: what in the world does Blood mean? Kingturtle (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Template talk:Female adult bio#Blood. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  blood? 

message: I believe the fields Piercings and Tattoos would be appropriate to add.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbhp (talk • contribs) 21:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm... why? We have a good many fields already, and piercings & tattoo information would fluctuate too much. I can see additional fields being useful (for instance, breaking the image field out into Image and Imagesize similar to how Infobox Actor does it) but not those two. Tabercil (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for aditional fields 

message: Let me direct your attention to a discussion at :Template talk:Female adult bio#Orientation?; if the decision there is to remove, then the same will be done with the field on this template. Tabercil (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orientation 

message: Umm, is the parameter measureispenis vandalism? If not, what does it mean? Martin 22:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I think I've just realised why this is called the adult bio template :) Martin 22:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penis 

message: Is there a process by which other external informational sites are added to the bottom of the template? I'm a contributor at Wikiporno which is very similar to Wikipedia, and endeavors to be a comprehensive information source for pornography. It is similar to the other external links that already exist in the template, but is more similar to Wikipedia in spirit and intent. Anyone have any opinion on adding it, or have an idea of how we could start that process?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trapfish (talk • contribs) 02:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't heard any feedback on this, so I'm assuming it's okay to add, test on a few pages that use the template, and then monitor talk pages for any complaints that it is not actually valuable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trapfish (talk • contribs) 17:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't know anything about Wikiporno except what I saw during the 15 minutes I spent browsing it. For many performers, all it contains is a filmography. I don't think it adds a great deal beyond iafd, which is subject to some degree of verification. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Morbidthoughts.  This should definitely not be done. Valrith (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, nothing there which looks like it's of utility. Keep the link off. Tabercil (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Wikiporno 

message: This edit removed the classes "vcard", "fn", "note" & "nickname", thereby removing the emitted microformat, despite a warning in the documentation, not to do this. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken 

message: The McAfee security feature says that site is very dangerous. Is it? Varlaam (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to AFDb 

message: I propose we move , , , , ,  away from the infobox to the external links section as we did with all other infoboxes (actor, person, television, film etc.). Copying from Infobox film's documentation:
Discussions about the fate of these links took place in numerous places over some time, with a number of people advocating removal of all external links from the infobox, if not the article as a whole. Others spoke of the value of having at least a link to IMDb in the infobox. Eventually, a far from undisputed consensus arose to remove all external links from the infobox and to move them to the External links section where appropriate in view of the External links guideline.
Important points towards this consensus included fact that the infobox could not include all of the available links and that it would be inappropriate to pick and choose one or a few of those links over others. Suggestions that losing access to the most useful of the available links (typically IMDb) would damage the usefulness of film articles were not found persuasive by many since such links could still be included in the External links section and the table of contents linking to the external links section having all of the useful external links is adjacent the infobox. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable.  Before we do that, it would be great to replace uses of this template for non-pornographic models and non-pornographic actresses.  I wrote a script which generates a list of articles to check, after first eliminating articles that match certain keywords (e.g., pornographic actress, adult actor, ...).  These links actually help with that process, since an actor with a page at afdb is almost certainly an adult actress.  I have found a large number of Greek fashion models are using this template, and some politicians (which is usually vandalism to add the politician's penis measurements).  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I requested a bot to perform the task. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to external links 

message: Per this discussion at WP:BLPN and this one at WP:ANI, I suggest that the inclusion of measurements in this template is not in keeping with our policies WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP. From what I have seen in the cases of both gay male porn performers and straight female Japanese porn performers, this information is either unsourced or sourced to dubious sources such as distributors of porn videos. I take WP:BLP to imply that personal details such as these would only be relevant if the performer was notable because of their penis or breasts and the information could be reliably sourced. (Notable in this case would be in the context of other porn performers, so perhaps it would be relevant for a male porn performer with an exceptionally large penis, but the size of all porn performers body parts are not notable.) If there are reliable sources which discuss the body parts in question and the performer is notable because of those body parts, this should probably be discussed in the body of the article rather than in an infobox. For these reasons, I propose that "measurements" and "measureispenis" be removed from the infobox. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *I cannot bring myself to vote on this. Sometimes Wikipedia can prove to be a deep joy at the end of a long, hard (no pun intended) day; this is just such an occasion - is anyone seriously debating whether penis size should be included in an info box on a living (or dead) person in a serious project?  Amazing  - I'd be happy with the latter - is anyone taking this seriously? You, Sandstein, should know better. Giacomo Returned  22:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't think you realize how serious this is. Surely if such things are disputed we can simply give a confidence interval or some other statistic? People need to know these things. Nevard (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

text: *I'm amending my comments to add the undocumented fields  and . What relevance do these have in any biography? These two fields are the most  trivial of trivial information. —Farix (t | c) 16:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: *:Blood types play an important role in Japanese culture as a substitute for zodiac signs. The key role that shoe sizes play in British culture is obvious from the fact that it is one of the first thing you are asked when you call the fire brigade. Hans Adler 16:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: *::Even in in Japan, blood type is simply trivia. More of a footnote like the zodiac signs, and zodiac signs are not included in biography infoboxes and articles either. As for shoe size, huh? Why would someone calling the fire department need to know anything about shoe sizes? Again, that is the most extreme of trivial information and you wouldn't find this type of information in an ordinary biography, much less an encyclopedia article. —Farix (t | c) 16:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: *:::I was thinking of this. (Sorry, I couldn't  find a video.) Looking for this, I learned that shoe size is also relatively important in the US.  Hans Adler 17:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: *::::If parodies are the only think you can come up with to demonstrate the relevance of shoe sizes in biographies, then you need not bother as you are proving the exact opposite. —Farix (t | c) 17:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: *:::::↓Open your eyes.↓ I think it's not unreasonable to expect a little sense of humour even from Wikipedia editors. Hans Adler 18:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: *::::::Not when you are using your "sense of humour" to a attempt to mock other editors, like myself. —Farix (t | c) 18:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: *:::::::I did no such thing. You really should have your sense of humour examined. Hans Adler 18:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: *::::::::You should put away with your personal attacks and apologize for your mockery before this goes to WP:ANI. —Farix (t | c) 19:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: *:Gentlemen, please, let us put aside this tangential discussion. I think there is a very serious matter that is being overlooked here. These size measurements under discussion pertain to a template used for adult film stars who are typically above-average in bust and/or penile dimension. The listing of such measurements can cause jealousy in the vast majority of our readers, who are average or even below average in size. Also, the flaunting of these measurements could cause marital difficulties with some couples, possibly leading even to divorce in extreme cases, when one partner seeks "greener pastures" as it were. I am no legal expert, but it is not difficult to imagine this template brought up as evidence in divorce court, and Wikipedia being held liable. Monetary penalties resulting from such court cases could potentially bankrupt a non-profit project such as Wikipedia. Gentlemen, please. For the sake of the future existence of Wikipedia, this template must be deleted. Dekkappai (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: *::Dekkappai, you appear to be following the advice you gave in your "retirement" message. If you have something to add to the discussion other than facetious statements, feel free to say it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: *:::Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Dekkappai (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I would say  for a start.  Then, I think the next step would be to see if there are any parameters in this template which are not in .  Many of the articles using this template are about "adult models", so it would make sense to convert those to the  template.  The articles using this template which are about "adult actors" would probably be converted to say , which has already been merged with .  If I recall, the last TFD for  closed as keep, although there are good arguments for eliminating that one as well.  That's my view of how we should proceed from here.  Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We can also remove . All other infoboxes don't use it as obvious or not important to be in the infobox. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "gender" appears to be used as a switch for creating URLs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

text: At a minimum, we appear to have consensus for removal of "measurements" and "measureispenis". Personally, I support the removal of all body part measurements from this template per Sandstein, but further discussion is probably warranted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we have. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove "measurements" from template 

message: Which parameters do you remove then? I need a list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say  for a start.  Then, I think the next step would be to see if there are any parameters in this template which are not in .  Many of the articles using this template are about "adult models", so it would make sense to convert those to the  template.  The articles using this template which are about "adult actors" would probably be converted to say , which has already been merged with .  If I recall, the last TFD for  closed as keep, although there are good arguments for eliminating that one as well.  That's my view of how we should proceed from here.  Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We can also remove . All other infoboxes don't use it as obvious or not important to be in the infobox. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "gender" appears to be used as a switch for creating URLs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

text: At a minimum, we appear to have consensus for removal of "measurements" and "measureispenis". Personally, I support the removal of all body part measurements from this template per Sandstein, but further discussion is probably warranted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we have. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of specific fields to be removed

message: With the removal of these parameters, is there a reason why this template couldn't be replaced by ? --AussieLegend (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. There are some more fields we could remove I guess like skin_color, eye color and hair color. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Seconded. Tabercil (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Um... Thirded(?).  Lately an IP has been adding a skin color to many of the articles that use this template and they keep getting reverted.  One of the reasons that I've seen given for the revert is "irrelevant".  That begs the question, when is it relevant then?  Personally, I don't really see the point in having the field.  If it's relevant to the person's article, it will be pointed out in the article somehow.  So why have the field?  Dismas|(talk) 00:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, skin_color seems a bit much.  As for eye_color, and hair_color, those are in , so if they are removed, we should remove them from both templates.  Otherwise, I would say this template is basically redundant to .  Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree skin_color should go, and for the same reason that Dismas gives. In terms of Infobox:model, the key difference is that the measurements field for Model will likely have reliable sources whereas Adult Biography tends to have very suspicious ones... so I don't think we can do a global replace of Adult with model. Now if we were talking changing Adult for Person, that's something which I could support... Tabercil (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Is this something that Yobot can do? Tabercil (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to learn more about AWB and have been looking into how to clear out an infobox field.  If nobody minds waiting a couple days (busy in real life until Sunday night), I'd like to take a stab at it.  Dismas|(talk) 01:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yobot could do it but I will be inactive till end of May for personal reasons. I can try to write the code somewhere and ask someone else to run it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm...  I've already started removing the field using AWB.  Dismas|(talk) 19:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect! -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pages that still use skin_colour can be found in :Category:Adult biography with deprecated parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that category populated?  Just curious from a technical perspective...  Dismas|(talk) 03:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Some if conditions in the infobox's code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I saw a few of those as well.  They included some rapper (forgot the name), Taya Parker (though she was in Penthouse), and Lacey Conner.  Dismas|(talk) 00:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One more reason to compltelly replace this infobox with infobox person as we did for actors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support replacing the infobox. That simplifies matters, prevents unintended (or sneeky) BLP violations in the source code, and prevents the proliferation of inappropriate parameters. Hans Adler 10:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added tracking for "natural bust", "orientation" and "shoe size". They have been removed per previous discussions but they are still present in some pages. Please someone help remove them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Flushed. Tabercil (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sending you my wikilove. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Fine with me.  Additionally, it presents challenges when trying to decide what to do with transsexual people.  Dismas|(talk) 10:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed gender which defines abovestyle per Infobox person and discussion. Added tracking category. Please someone clean up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that merging this Infobox (and model for that matter) with infobox person would be best. --Kumioko (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Also, does someone have a running list of the paramters we are removing for this (and if possible other) infobox? Also, does Infobox person already support all the fields from this infobox?--Kumioko (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Infobox person supports all the basic parameters (name, birth-death date and place, nationality, ethnicity, image, caption, height, weight, spouse, website, alias) I could transform this infobox to use infobox person but step 1 is to remove unnecessary colouring. After that we have to discuss if we really need "hair colour" and "eye colour" for adult actors. IF we remove them then spelling is useless too. My opinion is that we don't. After that we are left only with "number of films". -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed all the deprecated parameters as well as some invalid ones that were never in the template to begin with. IMO we could probably keep eye color but hair color is pretty pointless because so many women color their hair and so many men shave it off it makes it kinda senseless IMO. I don't really think spelling is needed regardless of whether we transition this template or not. Its not populated on very many and some of those are either appear incorrect or unverifiable. With regards to number of films I think there are enough other actor/actress/performer type individuals to warrant adding this to the person template if its not there already. --Kumioko (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I wouldn't object if we moved it to the Person infobox wholesale and just dropped the extra fields. Most (if not all) of the entries have links to IAFD which readily provide film details, same as for regular actors with links to IMDB. Hair colour I agree with Kumioko on, and eye colour can be considered a flexible field as well given that we have coloured contacts these days. Tabercil (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree in removing "hair colour" and "eye colour". If they are no objections I ll add them to the list with the deprecated parameters  along with "spelling" and start removing them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No complaints here. Hair and eye color are also apparant in Infobox model so if we do remove them we should consider starting a discussion about it on that template as well. --Kumioko (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almost redundant to Infobox:person? 

message: We are now in the last step of this merge. I suggest that we replace this infobox with Infobox person by moving "number_of_films" away from the infobox. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deprecate number_of_films and use Infobox person instead? 

message: I propose that we add a field for the number of mainstream (non-adult) films that an actor/actress has appeared in. Crossover status is a part of porn notability and more and more performers are gaining this distinction. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Field addition: Number_of_mainstream_films 

message: This message is to notify you that there is an RfC ongoing on whether to add pronunciation info to , a discussion which may also affect this template. Your comments on the matter are appreciated. The discussion can be found here. Thanks! 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 17:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC on [[Template talk:Infobox person|Template:Infobox person]]

message: I'd like to follow up on the above discussion (Proposal to remove measurements from template). with a proposal to adopt "Infobox person" as the default template for adult actors going forward, and dispense with the special template. Specifically, I am proposing this version as meeting the needs of the vast majority of related articles:
*Template:Infobox_person#Blank_template_with_basic_parameters [Original name was "Adopt Infobox Person for adult biographies" but that was confusing as noted below]. 
I'd like to propose that height & weight not be used in the infoboxes on adult entertainer articles. If these performers are to be treated as other actors and entertainers, then I suggest that the same format of presenting the infobox contents is used. These intricate details are not included in the infoboxes of the mainstream actors that I checked. 
The background for this proposal is at Talk:Aurora Snow#Height_.26_weight, where I questioned the inclusion of measurements, and was pointed here. I also question the inclusion of ethnicity, as it does not appear in infoboxes of mainstream actors either. Please voice your opinion below. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *I edited above to make the proposal more focused. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The only one of these parameters that I could reasonably see eliminating at this time is weight, since (as noted below) it can obviously fluctuate over time. There's nothing wrong with using an interview or something like IAFD for a non-controversial citation of height either. As for ethnicity, the USA is gradually becoming more & more diverse over time. I myself have three different ethnicities in my background, and many of my relatives have even more than I do. Guy1890 (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the comment. I removed "ethnicity" from the scope of this proposal. The reason I originally had it there is because this is intricate detail typically cited to an interview or another unreliable source. I've seen combinations of "Greek, Welsh, Cherokee and German" and other such like entries which look completely made up. Saving it for another time. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Remove weight and height parameters from Infobox Adult biography