Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 2

message: Hallo, I found the following mistake: The french actress Marilyn Jess has a page at the english wikipedia with the name "Marylin Jess", but actually this is wrong. She never appeared anythere with this name - so someone mixed up the "i" and the "y" in her given name. The link http://egafd.com/actresses/details.php/id/m0008 shows all her names. Could anyone change this mistake please or create a redirect please? Sorry my english is not the best. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.188.9.90 (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Done. Dekkappai 02:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Could someone change this mistake?

message: Is there some sort of weekly/monthly/etc. collaboration project?  Recently Lisa Sparxxx's article was basically gutted.  Granted, the info removed wasn't sourced but now it's a one sentence article with an infobox.  Surely she's done something that can be cited, so I'm wondering if there's some sort of effort for filling in these articles.  Dismas|(talk) 11:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaborations? 

message: I've moved the project from WikiProject Porn stars to Wikiproject Pornography as per consensus. The project covers the same topics it always has, but is now expanded to include porn films, filmmakers, porn genres, internet porn, and the larger topic of pornography itself. I've made some changes to the project page to reflect that. Let me know if the new version meets with your approval or whether some changes should be made. Iamcuriousblue 19:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Pornography 

message: Not sure if there has ever been any community consensus on this, but there is a discussion over at Talk:Lukas Ridgeston#Birth Name as to whether or not the use of the actor's real name in the article is an invasion of privacy.  I see that the issue come up before on this discussion page about a year ago (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 1#Real names), but I'm not sure if any consensus was ever reached.  Skeezix1000 20:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lukas Ridgeston

message: I think it should be considered a taboo to post the real names of adult actors without their express permission or if they are deceased or have publicly stated their real names.  The pseudonyms are not used so much to sound sexy, they are to protect those people's identities from stalkers and the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.161.105 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 18 April 2007
:As public figures, you must realize that porn stars' rights to privacy are lessened. Wikipedia is no exception to this rule, and we aren't about to carve out an exception for them. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That said, though, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, it is one of the things we really should cite sources for. Marylin Star is an example; it is not clear whether she has voluntarily given her real name, but it has been cited by sources such as Time, CNN, and the New York Times, so we use it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The anon editor is most likely Joanna Angel or someone in her employ based upon this edit in conjunction with this topic. I agree that BLPs should be vigorously sourced. However, we have no obligation to remove true information, although we tend to make an exception for statements that may be construed as libelous. Names, as far as I know, are not libelous. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's fairly clearly covered under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. We don't write articles that require "filing the proper request" ... or just imagine what could be written under the banner "It's easily verified by filing a request under the freedom of information act", or "It's easily verified by performing a simple experiment involving balls of different weight and the leaning tower of Pisa". "easily found on the Web" doesn't qualify as a Wikipedia:reliable source, and for something controversial about a living person, we need good citations from reliable sources. If the person in question is actively trying to hide this bit of information, it's pretty clearly controversial, which means we need to be extra careful. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate to post actors real names without permission 

message: If there are any people present on the project who are fluent in Spanish, can they look at this story about Nacho Vidal and see if there are any details we can fold into his article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tabercil (talk • contribs) 00:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any Spanish speakers? 

message: I'd like to propose that WikiProject Pornography begin using a template.  I propose .  As noted on Wikipedia:Template namespace, all we'd need to do is create a page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Template:TheNameOfYourTemplate.  I think it would be also worthwhile to establish an Assessment Project for WikiProject Pornography as well.  With that in mind, I'll propose the following as a template:  1) That we choose a red "XXX" as our image (I can create one); and 2) That we use the following as our text in the infobox:
:This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to porn stars and pornography. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
I can assist in setting up the Assessment Project portion of the Pornography Project, as well as the Talk page template (I know a good Wiki coder).
I feel pornography is as legitimate an art form as painting, and sexual performance as legitimate as any acting Bette Davis or Brad Pitt does.  (Strike that Brad Pitt reference...)  I think this would help us add a little legitimacy to our project, and garner porn some additiona legitimacy within Wikipedia and in the larger world.  Any comments?  Boos and hisses?  Great cheers?  - Tim1965 20:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template and Assessment Project

message: From looking at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Pornproject it looks like we have about 500 articles in our project. They're mostly porn stars, from the very recent time that this was Wikiproject:Porn Stars, so there are other articles on porn films or other related topics that could be added. (For example, I think History of erotic depictions would be very appropriate for the broadened project, and that, with Jenna Jameson, would be our two current WP:FAs.) Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment both go into great detail on Quality, but relatively little on Importance. I looked around at  a few  well organized projects to get an idea. Let me propose some basic Importance guidelines, and see if people agree or disagree.
* Top: 1 in 100 articles. That would be 5 porn stars, and a few others. For the 5 porn stars, I recommend the top 5 at the  AVN list: (Ron Jeremy, Jenna Jameson, John Holmes, Tracy Lords, Linda Lovelace) as they seem to mostly match the #Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 section, above, where we were asked to list our most important articles. Outside porn stars, I'd add Pornography itself, Hugh Hefner as the most famous pornographer, maybe a few others, but not many, keeping it at the 1 in 100 ratio. These articles would be on subjects famous within pornography and indisputably notable even outside pornography. In other words, many in depth articles and/or books from both mainstream and porn sources.
* High: a bit under 1 in 10 articles. That would probably be the rest of both the AVN list and the Key articles section, and a number of other. Subjects here would be famous within pornography, and at least somewhat known of even outside pornography. Example: Tera Patrick, Annabel Chong.
* Med: 4 in 10 articles - Either well known inside pornography and little known outside pornography (Example: Stephanie Swift, Jim South), or somewhat known outside pornography but not famous in pornography (Example: John Wayne Bobbitt, Marylin Star).
* Low: 5 in 10 articles - Not very well known inside or outside pornography. Most of the articles that barely squeaked by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for borderline notability would be low importance.
--AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment thoughts 

message: Can someone look at Kascha's article? I took out a bunch of stuff a few days ago that looked like garbage, and bad tone, very spammy references to work with someone named Carleena coincidentally added by User:Carleena (which I think is the same person under different usernames who has made a bunch of similar changes), so I cleaned it all up, and it all just got put back. The article from my last edit is probably what it should say, so can someone have an objective look? Brjatlick 02:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just have time for a quick look. First thing that caught my eye is that the infobox wasn't set up right. I fixed that. Next thing that catches my eye is, there is no sourcing for the article. Someone should fix that. Third thing would be to put headings into the article. Hope that helps a little. Dekkappai 02:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I should have mentioned, Carleena-- Should you decide to source that article, you might want to avoid using Google as a research tool. Apparently some editors consider the use of Google as a means of finding sources to be objectionable... At least for some articles. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Derek. Dekkappai 18:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were sources cited. Whoever it was made those changes to the article also deleted the sources. That strikes me as a downright vandal. But its really hard to write anything on a porn star without using google to find the info. Here is my last unvandalized version. Brjatlick 19:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was just about to advise looking in the revision history - nothing is ever lost (or, rather, very rarely). Use what tools you like, and a Google search can be quite useful, just as a library can be. The point is a web search shouldn't be cited by itself, any more than you can cite, say, a big library. (Oh, there's some info on this person in the Library of Congress. Really. Go and look.) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I was being sarcastic about the Google searches, Brjatlick-- I tend to respond to absurd arguments (such as the one going on at that Afd) with sarcasm. Sarcasm is deprecated here, I know, but I can't help myself sometimes... I've re-added the sources. Feel free to put back any other good and sourced information that anyone else deletes without good reason. That is, indeed, a form of vandalism. Dekkappai 20:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I know the revision history is here, I just want a second opinion that going back to my last version is legit and not edit-warring, since I think this Carleena person is just spamming, but I don't know, maybe she's famous somewhere. But thanks, I am going back to that last version I did, and if the same vandalisms happen again I'll report it. Brjatlick 20:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kascha Papillon]] 

message: Is listing a porn star's tattoos really that notable to be included on wikipedia? Look on most porn star articles, you might even see a whole section listing their tattoos. --Philip Laurence 22:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends. :-) In Jenna Jameson, the porn star article that reached Wikipedia:Featured article, we do mention her trademark "heart breaker" tattoo, but that's partly due to the fact that she got started through her boyfriend being a tattoo artist. We don't go into great detail on her others, but do give a comprehensive reference that shows off most of them. Frankly, since a porn star's physical appearance and, umm, modifications, do have a noticeable influence on their career, I wouldn't say a cited sentence or two would be out of line. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tattoos 

message: No offense but....the concept a project to improve pornography pages made me giggle. Fusion7 17:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice. Iamcuriousblue 17:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  with all due respect