Talk:List of pornographic film studios

message: Do you know any pornographic movie studio from Romania? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serkanbulan (talk • contribs) 18:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romania 

message: I have downloaded the studio list from tlaReleasing. There are 799 studios on the list; obviously, some of them are quite specialized and probably have never been heard of by people in the US. Any ideas on how to use (or not) this information?—Chidom talk  03:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprehensive Studio List 

message: What about Viv Thomas Productions? Jamesino 00:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an article of Viv Thomas himself but not his studio...at least maybe not yet anyway.--Yikola (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viv thomas 

message: I think the article should not be merge with Gay Porn Studios as the content is different from main stream and diserves it's own page. Gay Porn Studios page is not just a list of gay porn studios.--Quinnzach 03:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Merge 

message: I know that adding all the external links to the homosexual studio names was an incredible amount of work; however, according to my reading of Wikipedia policies, it shouldn't be done. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
Specifically, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files states:
:"Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. See Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines."
At Wikipedia:External links, the What should be linked to section states:
:"Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Sources available in both web and print editions should have a citation for the print edition as well as a link." (emphasis added)
Additionally, Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) Selection criteria states:
:"Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." (emphasis added)
Links here should be wikilinks to a Wikipedia article on the studio which could then contain a link to the studio's website as a source of information for the article. For example, see Lucas Entertainment.
The Links normally to be avoided section in Wikipedia:External links goes on:
:"Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming."
While I have advocated using external commercial sites as sources of information for videographies, the purpose of such use is to to obtain very specific information, i.e., a performer's videography. (More often than not, I use a commercial video retailer to avoid having to reference several different studio websites for a performer that has worked for many different studios.) I've had to defend this practice as it is often seen as falling into this prohibition; the only way I have salvaged using the links is to point out that I'm linking to the sites not to sell the videos, but to obtain information about them which is rarely found anywhere else. Linking to a site for a specific type of information is far different than linking to a website in general.
These guidelines and policies have been applied to the List of gay porn stars article as well—if a performer is listed who isn't important enough to "reasonably expect an article" to be "forthcoming in the future", the name is deleted from the list. Likewise, external links to performer websites have been removed from the list and where there is an article on the performer, added there.
Technically, then, this list needs to be culled to only include studio names that should eventually have articles here. I'm not up to the task of culling the existing list, however.
I recounted; the [http:www.tlavideo.com tlavideo.com] website lists 810 studios. (That includes "legitimate" studios as well as pornographic studios.) Obviously, we won't ever have 799 articles on studios; some of them made one or two films and folded. 
I'm not known for my brevity, but I wanted to give a really complete reason for removing all the links. Thanks.—Chidom talk  16:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External commercial links 

message: It seems that should be a list of studios that are important (or "notable", if you must) enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia, not just a list of studios because they are studios. 
See Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm already maintaining the List of gay porn stars with regard to this; someone else will need to step up and "police" the list before the whole thing gets nominated for deletion.—Chidom talk  19:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Wikipedia is not 

message: It makes no sense for there to be so many red links and spammy external lists on this list; I am going to be bold and remove those (consistent with discussion about external links above).
Going forward, anyone considering adding a studio to this list should keep in mind the following from the Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) guideline:
"Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future."
To test the reasonableness of your expectations, you encouraged to create the article on the studio first and then add it to this list. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion criterion 

message: How come lesbians are not included in homosexuals? This is funny. Homosexual means both lesbian and gay. It is true most heterosexual men watch lesbian pornos, as they do not see lesbian relationship serious, but this cannot mean they are in the same category.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.104.226 (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You know thats a good point.Although I think there's a different view point because of double standards maybe?--Yikola (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lesbian? 

message: Studios like "Platinum X Pictures" and "DVSX" have 300+ titles each  , much more than some of the studios listed here. Major studios marked there in red. I've restored the links, Pls do not remove them. 217.132.67.172 (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If they were truly that important, then they would have a page of their own, and the link would not be a redlink. A redlink is of little use to anyone.  Suggest create the pages for the studios first and then add the links.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have time to do this right now. Those studios are really important, especially the first one I mentioned - very popular. There is no policy to avoid red links. I've removed red links to non-notable studios from this list in the past and only kept links to major studios. I know this biz. 217.132.67.172 (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links 

message: I got some more studios that could be added to the list eventually.There's California wildcats,Sappholovefilms,Realitygang...
I'll add some more later.--Yikola (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  more studios? 

message: Is there anyone (besides me) that find the section titles for this article, "1 Studios that exclude male-male and male-TG sex" and "2 Studios that include male-male and male-TG sex", incredibly homophobic and POV laden? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section titles 

message: I will be the first to admit that this List needs cleanup and references added, but it needs to be done in a reasonable manner. Wholesale deletion like this without any discussion is frowned upon, even for porn related articles. So lets please work together to build an encyclopedia.  --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, insight into these questions can be found in the archive of this ANI discussion. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Hi , I'm not sure if we're having this discussion here or on my Talk page, but I just wanted to let you know that I'm working on a sources for citations for the entries on this list. What makes it difficult is that many studios also provide others services to the adult industry. I'm trying to make sure that I'm referring to the correct operation. I've asked at least one other Editor for assistance. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 08:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My attention was drawn to the article because it was edited by a spammer, with whose disruptive editing I was dealing with in my capacity as an administrator. Looking at the article, I saw a huge number of listings of companies without any reference and without any corresponding articles in English Wikipedia. From experience, I know that such listings are usually spam, and in this case, I knew that some of them were, since, as I have explained, that is why I was there in the first place. However, whether they are spam or not, there is rarely justification for including companies in list articles without evidence that they are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. (Indeed, a criterion very commonly employed is that if a business is not notable enough to be the subject of an article then it should not be included in a list. That principle is described at Wikipedia:Write the article first.) I removed the relevant entries. Usually, removing unsourced entries in list articles is totally uncontroversial, almost the only time anyone objects being when a spammer objects to his or her spam edit being removed, but that is rare, as spammers usually just post their spam and move on, never seeing that their spam has been reversed. This occasion turned out to be an exception, as you reverted what I did, giving an edit summary warning of blocks and bans. I have explained my reasons, and you have explained you position. Although you do not explicitly say so, your attitude seems to be that you wish to include as many pornography companies as possible, and view the need to show notability as secondary, rather than viewing the need to exclude non-notable content as primary. Whether that is a correct reading of your view or not, however, nowhere have you given any reason why this edit should be an exception to the policy that when unsourced content is removed, it must not be restored without providing reliable sources. Since you have posted numerous messages about this since I first posted about it to your talk page, you have had plenty of opportunity to provide such a reason if you have one, so I assume you don't have one. I shall therefore remove the unsourced content again. Please do not restore any of it without providing reliable sources, as doing so will be a violation of a Wikipedia policy which has been pointed out to you. I also strongly recommend not restoring any of it without sources providing coverage of a suitable nature to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, justifying having articles on the relevant businesses, as doing so is against practice which has widespread consensus behind it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  List cleanup 

message: Notification of Project members:     
To all concerned or interested: I've started working on locating references for each entry for this list on this version. The Internet Adult Film Database (iafd.com) seemingly has the most complete list of production companies, but there is no easy way to access a fixed URL for each studio. That leaves AVN.com, XBIZ.com, and the respective websites for each company for sourcing. I've made an inquiry about access to links on IAFD, so we'll see where that leads. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for list entries 

message: 'Coat Corporation' is missing. It's a gay pornographic studio from Japan. Website: http://www.coat.co.jp  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.77.249.103 (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat Corporation 

message: IS there anyway to segregate US porn studios statewise? Like how many are in CA,TX,NY etc?
162.244.80.230 (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  porn studios statewise location 

message: I changed article organization, after TNT tentative. The goal is to keep a single list, without being separated by country or gay content.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Organization 

message: Is it really relevant to state that a studio produces gay content next to the studio name in the list? This is a list of pornographic studios, and whether they produce gay content or not seems irrelevant to the list as a whole. DeniedClub❯❯❯ talk? 19:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Change. I have read previous discussions and I understand why the porn community has a general separation of gay content versus straight content, however it seems totally unnecessary for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not built around conforming to the communities the article are written about, but about the factual content itself. If this is a list about pornographic studios then that is what the list needs to reflect. Gay or straight, pornography is pornography and there is no caveat in this list that sets a separation for the two genres. I vote the list be a pure list of pornographic studios, regardless of the content they produce. DeniedClub❯❯❯ talk? 09:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I also suggest removing the country because today the dissemination of content is global via the internet.Guilherme Burn (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay content next to studio names