Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Observations and suggestions

As a promise to Drmies, I am officially leaving the project. After I post these observations and suggestions, I will remove my name from the project's list of active participants. (I've already un-watched most of the pages I've edited; I'll catch-up on un-watching the others soon.)

I hope these observations and suggestions will be allowed to stay here because I sincerely think they'll improve Wikipedia's porn content:

1. I truly believe there are numerous (dozens?) of porn bios that probably do not meet WP:PORNBIO criteria, especially given the quality of some of the sources. These articles are unprofessional at best, and may even cross the line into PRIVACY and/or WP:LIBEL issues. And how about high-quality sources for the all the dead porn-bio subjects? Porn performers aren't second-class citizens.

2. The male porn bios are significantly lacking in images, which, IMO, is indicative of possibly sexist editing. Why should the male porn-bio subjects get the relative anonymity/privacy of being faceless?

3. Speaking of photos. My observation is - though I don't know if it's an image policy or guideline or something like - that nipples and genitalia are covered in the porn bio infoboxes... except for this one.[1] They're awfully pale, maybe even photoshopped, but those are nipples. Also, this woman looks like she has heartburn, or maybe she just got caught off-guard adjusting her boobs?[2] There isn't a better photo available? (Could actually be said for quite a few porn infobox "portraits.")

4. Wait. Speaking of possibly sexist editing, wouldn't head shots be more appropriate for the infobox pictures? If not, then in all fairness, please change-up the male porn-bio shots to full torso shots, so that bulges can be visually assessed. (Hell, maybe add penis length and girth to the infobox stats?) Lightbreather (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

5. Finally, I have proposed that lukeisback.com be blacklisted[3] because, regardless of the advice here and elsewhere, that source creeped into hundreds of articles. I don't know how that effects the source for images, but I think that problem has very workable solutions. --Lightbreather (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • The lack of photos in many biography articles (pornography-related or not) is a well-known problem on Wikipedia. The one tool that I'm aware of to try & look for "suitable" images doesn't work that well in my personal experience. The fact is that Wikipedia has very strict rules about which photos are even allowed on this site. I happen to think that those rules are too restrictive, but I doubt that they will change anytime soon. There seems to be a wide variety of images (sometimes too many IMHO) available for certain people and none (or next to none) for others.
I think our existing & long-standing Project policy on not using explicit images ("images should not be explicit in nature, unless an explicit image is necessary for the article subject. Pictures with the genitals, bust, or buttocks of the person exposed should not be posted, nor should there be pictures posted of the person engaging in sex acts. Pictures should not include the person covered in any bodily fluids, including semen.") is pretty clear and is, in my personal experience, adhered to by the vast majority of responsible Wikipedia editors. The issue with Tami Monroe is that there's apparently only one image available for her on all of Wikipedia, and the situation with Reina Leone isn't much better unfortunately.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that penis length used to be a part of the standard infobox for these kind of BLPs, but it was removed around-about the same time that waist/hip measurements & bust size were removed from that same infobox.
I have no problem with blacklisting lukeisback.com, as long as it doesn't affect the ability of this Project to use older photos from that same site here on Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Dream Team (2003 film)

Does this article meet WP:Notability standards? --George Ho (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Feminist strippers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Feminist strippers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist strippers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Cirt (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Pornography articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

PROD

I just prodded Pornography in the Middle East. Can it be saved? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably not, looks like a prime candidate for merging and redirect. --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:Edit warring on Jake Steed's article by a WP:Single-purpose account

A user by the name of Primetime07 keeps on removing the photo of Jake Steed from his article without providing an explanation. WP:Assuming good faith, I decided to look up images of Steed. I though that perhaps the person in the article's photo might be someone else, but that is not the case. The man in the photo is clearly Jake Steed, here's his AFDB picture. I asked Primetime07 to stop reverting my edits without giving an explanation, but he did it again anyways. Also, a quick look at Primetime07's contributions shows that it is a WP:Single-purpose account. I want Primetime07 to stop WP:Edit warring on Steed's article. We've already reverted each other's edits three times. I'm not sure what to do now. Where can I report this and how? I'm not even sure if continuing to revert Primetime07's edits can be considered WP:NOT3RR. Rebecca1990 (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Rebecca, not only is this most definitely subject to 3RR but you need to think about the negative affects of edit warring generally. Posting here is a much better idea. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, its not that "cut and dry". First, if the User in question is not using edit summaries and not responding to communication, then its safe to declare the actions as vandalism if the content is properly sourced. 2nd, the fact that the User's edits are directed exclusively at the Steed article reinforce the idea that its intentional, i.e. vandalism. BLP or not, 3RR does not apply IMO. --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Primetime07 is edit warring on Jake Steed's article again. Has this user been blocked yet? He should be. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
You might try WP:ANI, that is where you can get an admin to take a look. All we on the project can do is add the page to our watchlists. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ping: Epbr123, Malik Shabazz, WikiLeon As project members, would you mind taking a look at this situation [4]. Thank you and best regards, --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

AdultDVDTalk.com Interviews as sources

I've started to run across these and after reading several, they look like good sources of information. What issues do we face in using them? interviews.adultdvdtalk.com/ --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I would be careful when trying to cite potentially controversial information when using this kind of source, and I'd definitely try & use the Cite Interview template when using these kind of sources in the future. I personally don't see a problem when using interviews as a source for info that only the interviewee would know about (how they got into the industry, their sexual orientation, etc.). Guy1890 (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Good points and thank you for the link to the Interview template. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Please review Hitachi Magic Wand

As part of a Quality improvement project, I've recently put the article Hitachi Magic Wand up for Peer Review.

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hitachi Magic Wand/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

32nd AVN Awards

Since there are ample sources for information and its only a couple months away, I went ahead and started the article for the 2015 awards. Its just a stub, but once the nominations are announced we can format the article in a more consistent manner. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Assistance requested

I just uploaded the full list of categories with their nominees, sourced of course. I wouldn't mind some assistance with the bulleting and sections, lots and lots and lots of key hits to do... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, bulleting is done, now I could use some help with wikilinking. Thanks, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
@Guy1890, Thank you, thank you, thank you!! :)
There's still some more work to do, but I've added a bunch (hopefully not too many) Wiki-links and made some more edits to mostly format the movie entries better in this article. That's all I have time for right now. Guy1890 (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Id' say we're OK until the event, we know the winners, and then we can convert the article to format (with templates and tables and such) of the previous entries. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

CAVR Award based content deletions

Hey Folks, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been deleting wins for the CAVR award from numerous articles with the edit summary that it "lacks significance, per consensus". Was there a discussion here that I missed? I can't find a recent discussion of it either. (ping: Rebecca1990, Guy1890, Morbidthoughts, Dismas, Malik Shabazz‎‎) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember if there was a specific conversation about it or not but for quite some time we've weeded out awards from the actor's articles that didn't have an article for the award. Thus, awards were trimmed down to what were notable per Wikipedia standards. Things like "blah blah girl of the month" were therefore eliminated and it gave us a bar to measure the inclusion by. If the CAVR Award had its own article, I can see how an easy argument could be made for their inclusion on the actor articles. Dismas|(talk) 17:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
There have been (inter alia) an AFD concluding unanimously that the "award" failed the GNG, the uncontested removal of its mention shortly thereafter, the film wikiproject's discussions regarding comparable NN awards, the subsequent uncontroversial removal of NN awards, the ANI discussion a few months back calling on the editors adding NN, promotional, and COI awards to articles to open discussion rather than persisting and edit warring -- which wasn't complied with, but led to sub rosa IP editing and harassment of the editor who opened the ANI. In no other area does Wikipedia tolerate "awards" given by self-publishing bloggers, by vendors promoting what they sell, or by publishers hyping their own products and services. In fact, in no other area do serious editors even dispute or contest this. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
It really isn't a significant award. Den, who was CAVR and the most prolific adult film reviewer, inserted most mentions of his award into the subject's articles. The awards were just one man's personal opinion and are only casually mentioned here and there even in the adult trade journals. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Consensus is actually in favor of including all properly sourced awards in articles ([5] & [6]). Earlier this year, I came across this on my watchlist. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removed a NightMoves Award from Eva Angelina's article and Morbidthoughts reverted his edit, citing WP:NNC, which states that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". I think he stopped removing awards from articles after this, or at least stopped removing them from articles on my watchlist. It wasn't until these last couple of days that I noticed several articles on my watchlist having their CAVR awards removed by HW. I'm in favor of including all awards in articles, regardless of the award's significance. Scene awards don't count towards notability either and no one removes those awards from articles and they shouldn't. HW has removed awards (such as Juliland awards) from articles with edit summaries stating "no more noteworthy than McDonald's naming the Big Mac 'Hamburger of the Year'" and "employee-of-the-month awards" just because the recipient has worked for the company giving the award. I don't think this is a good reason to remove these awards from articles. Penthouse awards the titles of "Pet of the Month" and "Pet of the Year" to women they have employed but we still include it in every Penthouse Pet's article without arguing that it's an "employee-of-the-month award", it simply doesn't count towards notability (which I agree with EXCEPT for when it comes to Penthouse Pet of the YEAR, that one should definitely count towards notability in my opinion). We even have a List of Penthouse Pets article, which I don't thing anyone has tried to delete or merge into the Penthouse Magazine article. We also have templates for Penthouse Pets at the bottom of their articles. Now, I think it would probably be a good compromise for both sides of this debate to include ALL award WINS in articles, but exclude any nomination for non-notable awards such as this one. Rebecca1990 (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
As WP:NNC notes, article content should still satisfy WP:UNDUE and WP:V. At least have an independent reliable source that takes note of and confirms the specific awarding for V. Then consider the award's significance under UNDUE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
So then if I understanding everyone's comments, it is acceptable to include CAVR awards (as minor as they may or may be) as long as they are sourced properly. Maybe we should just port over the CAVR article from the French language WP. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Better yet, should we open an RfC (Request for Comment) so that more of the community can comment? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

New Awards program

Oh boy, here we go...

http://business.avn.com/articles/technology/Nominations-Open-for-First-Annual-Live-Cam-Awards-582740.html --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

SqueakBox campaign at AN/I

Please note that SqueakBox's recent activites in the WP:BLP campaign against listing names in porn-related articles. It came to my attention because of edits to the feminist art porn anthology Dirty Diaries that I created a few years ago. The blanking[7] both Jenna Jameson and Briana Banks from the article Briana Loves Jenna seems like pure point-making. I've started[8] a thread at WP:AN/I#SqueakBox and porn again. After noticing the blanking of major porn actors from articles, I've also suggest a warning or a topic ban.

Peter Isotalo 14:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I saw this too and commented that I hope its not a rehash of ANI:List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films from this last August. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hustler Magazine case, Requested move

Please see Talk:Hustler_Magazine,_Inc._v._Falwell#Requested_move_8_February_2015.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Is motion picture pornography on film only?

So why does Category:Porn stars lead to Category talk:Pornographic film actors? As I semi-jokingly indicated in the Category talk:Pornographic film actors#I guess actors in non-film works are wt:S.O.L., huh?, we might need a Category:Pornographic video actors, Category:Pornographic still image actors, or Category:3D pornographic actors.199.119.232.214 (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

While I can see the logic in this approach, I can't imagine a bigger practical and logistical quagmire (giggity) to keep track of. It's the same with mainstream, when they figure out their solution we'll probably follow suit. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Same guy, different IP. I don't see how it would be difficult. Just call them actors, or actresses as in this genre gender still matters. If they've done only films, put them in a film sub-category, if they've done only videos, put them in a video sub-category. If both, have both or just leave them in the porn actor/actress category. Ditto if they just model or the like.

eg

199.7.156.130 (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, but our Notability guidelines WP:PORNBIO do not cover all of that and there isn't an overwhelming need for such detailed categories. You proposing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If we need to clean up terminology, so be it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks like I got some reading to do.   :-)   I'm not terribly passionate about it: I just think that "film" is a bit unnecessary and might get in the way.199.7.156.130 (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Same guy, different IP. I'll give WP:PORNBIO and related links a decent read and think about it. If I think there is a need to create the new category Category:Porn actors or Category:Pornography actors or Category:Actors in pornography—at this point all still red links, as well as whether to use the actors/actresses or simply male actors/female actors, I will mention it here before doing anything in these matters, and then perhaps after a little more time for discussion, proceed to put all the articles-at-the-time in the current category into my new one, and change the former into a redirect to the latter—assuming others don't do it first—this will likely take a long while before I do anything here.   :-)
199.7.156.129 (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess what the original posting here is supposedly about is the difference between performers that work in adult films and performers that work in online scenes? There really isn't a difference, IMHO, between film & video releases in the adult industry, since much of the in-person adult theaters of yesteryear appear to be long gone at this late date. Heck, from what I understand, even mainstream films are rarely shown in actual film format as opposed to digital (CD, DVD, etc.) format.
From my years on Wikipedia so far, "over-categorization" is something that many that care about categories (and I really don't) seem to want to fight against. That instinct plus a general anti-pornography feeling by many Wikipedia editors (and even some administrators) tend to cause Wikipedia to err on the side of less rather than more categories in this area. Guy1890 (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Over-categorization isn't a problem in this topic alone. In general, the main purpose of categories is to link broadly related topics. I know from recent experience that even possibly ahistorical events discussed in religious works are included in the main categories for the types of events involved, because they are "related" topics. Regarding the various categories, if there were enough articles which would fall exclusively within one of the more focused categories and only within that category, there might be cause for category creation then, but it would help to know of those articles before creating the categories. Lastly, Wikipedia:WikiProject Film at least by its title implies that "film" is still one of the standard terms for all video releases, including theatrical, home video, internet, etc., etc., etc. John Carter (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI - some AVN Award articles in need of some serious help

There have recently been some mostly ham-handed attempts at gutting/blanking large amounts of the following articles:

There may be some other Project articles affected as well, but those are the ones that I've come across so far. I've tried to re-add some info that was obviously well-sourced within these articles in the first place & restore much of the formatting to these articles. I've always been under the impression that many (if not all?) of these articles were already well-sourced with at least known past AVN Award winners, although I don't think that much of that sourcing was inline. Some help restoring these articles would be appreciated, especially by someone that understands table formatting more than I do. Guy1890 (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You can also add Face Fucking, Inc. to this list of gutted articles as well...still looking for more... Guy1890 (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Holy Crap! SqueakBox, I thought after what happened in August that you were done with the massive WP:POINTy edits. You can't come here and post your concerns FIRST??? Maybe ask for help in adding refs?? Editors came out of the woodwork to make changes to the List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films. There's already an ANI... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Another Wikipedia user has been temporarily banned from editing articles in this genre and from nominating articles to AfD as well. Guy1890 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

New Editor making changes across numerous articles

I've just run across a series of changes, many of which are Porn BLP, but not exclusively, on articles that are part of this project. In short, one Editor has been removing external links such as Twitter citing WP:EL. The list is here. I have left a note on this Editor's Talk page[9] and I am awaiting their response. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:ELNO #10 is pretty clear. Twitter feeds shouldn't be included as external links. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that #10 is pretty clear, but the list says "Links normally to be avoided" (so not always) plus the vast majority of topics that it applies to have more extensive mainstream media coverage than most Porn subjects including people. I realize that Twitter is not a WP:RS, but it often contains information that can point an Editor towards new sourced content. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Why do these templates exist in the first place if not for use in Wikipedia articles? If they are linked to official social media sites controlled by the subject(s) of the article(s) in question, then what's the big deal? Guy1890 (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Embedded video at Debbie Does Dallas

Debbie Does Dallas now resides in the public domain, and in such cases it is common practice to provide a link to the film or embed the film in the article. An editor has taken exception in this particular case on the grounds that it is pornographic film. Should the fact that the film is pornographic require that it is treated differently to non-pornographic films? The full discussion is at Talk:Debbie_Does_Dallas#Censorship_of_article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability of LiveJasmin

LiveJasmin has won numerous awards and therefore satisfies WP:WEBCRIT, which states "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization". The article had a notability tag, which I removed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reverted my edit, I removed the notability tag two more times, and he reverted both of those edits as well. Can someone help me here? I can't remove that notability tag again without violating the WP:3RR. The discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MET-Art resulted in "keep" with only one XBIZ award being enough to satisfy WP:WEBCRIT, so 4 XBIZ awards, an AVN award, and a Venus award are clearly enough for LiveJasmin to satisfy WP:WEBCRIT too. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Just the basis that the site is so highly ranked is enough for me, the awards just confirm it. HW is wikilawyering again using terms like "inter alia" and such without any substance or support. I wonder who gave him that "word of day" calendar. The article Talk page is suspiciously absent of discussion as well, I asked HW to comment.
Rebecca, this is seeming more and more directed personally towards you. As I mentioned on your Talk page, these Edit summaries by HW [10][11] come across as personal attacks. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If a Wikipedia article would survive at AfD, then a notability tag on that same article isn't needed at all. Why not ask for some more eyes on the page in question here on this talk page? I also don't know whether or not another corporate Wikipedia notability criteria would also apply in this case as well (in addition to the GNG standard of course). Guy1890 (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Is anyone here going to remove the notability tag from the LiveJasmin article? Rebecca1990 (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. Freikorp (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Kitty Jung

I just ran across this posting on the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession:

  • Kitty Jung - American Adult Actress (Born October 24, 1984 in US). She is known for a huge number of adult films, as well as her small size.This has been contrasted against male adult star John Holmes who was known for his largess. There is no truth to the rumor that they were in the same movie as she was only a child when he died on March 13, 1988. See Wikipedia entry for John Holmes.There are very few details about the actress online despite her huge amount of starring roles in films so will include a few links, although any online search that allows adult results will explode with her films.
richest-celebrities, Kitty Jung Youtube
Tried to find better references but felt that most offer too much exposure. I do not have much experience editing so will leave that to someone that enjoys the task...;) [1] Polygyrotee (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I got curious and found that the article has been created and deleted 8 times since 2006, wow... then I found that she was in The Millionaire Matchmaker (Season 3, Ep 9) in 2010[12]. Anyway, why so much resistance? No awards or something else? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I actually remember seeing that episode of Millionaire Matchmaker when it aired and laughing when I saw her on the screen. I had heard that she apparently had a baby before that, but I suspect that there's likely a real lack of notability (with only a few non-adult movies to her credit and apparently no real awards of any note) there. I think she's still retired at this late date as well, and it probably doesn't help that when she was in the adult movie business that she looked so young...eek... Guy1890 (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=kitty+jung&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:34, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I just came across this discussion here entitled "Listing of porn award nominations", which is apparently about whether or not Wikipedia articles should have an "exhaustive listing of porn awards nominations" in BLPs. Guy1890 (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

We should probably be keeping track of these various discussions especially if they are going to affect how we manage article content. Since no one seems to accept or trust Project member opinions, maybe they'll heed what non-members have to say. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Dana Vespoli

Hey,

I uploades a couple of photos of Dana Vespoli from Luke Ford. But one of them was tagged for deletion. Can someone take a look at it? What's missing? the images are on Commons: Dana Vespoli Bmurso (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Photo uploads are not my expertise at all, but apparently only certain photos taken in the past by Luke Ford are totally OK for upload to Wikipedia. The ones that are still left at Wikimedia Commons for her are both apparently from 2005, and I guess one of the ones that you tried to upload was from 2014? Guy1890 (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles Deletion

I don't know much about who's interested in deleting pornstars related articles, but it looks like many of them didn't needed to be deleted. Does anyone knows how to propose changes on the Notability of Pornographic actors and models? I believe that an important topic is missing: number of movie appearances, an actress that appears in more than 100 movies during 5 years for example, shouldn't be elegible for an article? Bmurso (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • The number of films criterion was removed from PORNBIO years ago. The nature of porn films makes a high number fairly common. The current guideline relies on acknowledgement by reliable (or industry) sources of the actor's contributions to porn. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As of right now, you have to show that an adult film performer has begun "a trend in pornography" or "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature", which is not always that easy to do. I highly doubt that relaxing the PORNBIO inclusion standard would go over well with enough Wikipedia users/administrators these days. Some adult film performers are also directors, so they can also be evaluated under the WP:FILMMAKER standard as well. Guy1890 (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The standards for inclusion of pornography/pornographic actors is far, far too lenient. You guys are massively overrepresented on the encyclopedia. It's inexcusable. --DawnDusk (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"overrepresented" versus what? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
"You guys"? Who do you think we are, a bunch of porn stars? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI

I just came across this discussion here entitled "Listing of porn award nominations", which is apparently about whether or not Wikipedia articles should have an "exhaustive listing of porn awards nominations" in BLPs. Guy1890 (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

We should probably be keeping track of these various discussions especially if they are going to affect how we manage article content. Since no one seems to accept or trust Project member opinions, maybe they'll heed what non-members have to say. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Dana Vespoli

Hey,

I uploades a couple of photos of Dana Vespoli from Luke Ford. But one of them was tagged for deletion. Can someone take a look at it? What's missing? the images are on Commons: Dana Vespoli Bmurso (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Photo uploads are not my expertise at all, but apparently only certain photos taken in the past by Luke Ford are totally OK for upload to Wikipedia. The ones that are still left at Wikimedia Commons for her are both apparently from 2005, and I guess one of the ones that you tried to upload was from 2014? Guy1890 (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles Deletion

I don't know much about who's interested in deleting pornstars related articles, but it looks like many of them didn't needed to be deleted. Does anyone knows how to propose changes on the Notability of Pornographic actors and models? I believe that an important topic is missing: number of movie appearances, an actress that appears in more than 100 movies during 5 years for example, shouldn't be elegible for an article? Bmurso (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • The number of films criterion was removed from PORNBIO years ago. The nature of porn films makes a high number fairly common. The current guideline relies on acknowledgement by reliable (or industry) sources of the actor's contributions to porn. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As of right now, you have to show that an adult film performer has begun "a trend in pornography" or "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature", which is not always that easy to do. I highly doubt that relaxing the PORNBIO inclusion standard would go over well with enough Wikipedia users/administrators these days. Some adult film performers are also directors, so they can also be evaluated under the WP:FILMMAKER standard as well. Guy1890 (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The standards for inclusion of pornography/pornographic actors is far, far too lenient. You guys are massively overrepresented on the encyclopedia. It's inexcusable. --DawnDusk (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"overrepresented" versus what? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
"You guys"? Who do you think we are, a bunch of porn stars? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Why list every company a performer has worked for?

I've come across several porn biography articles which list every single production company the performer has ever worked for. Here's some examples:

WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Companies a performer has worked for should only be mentioned in their articles if they are a significant part of their careers (e.g. performing/directing contracts, porn debut, directorial debut, etc.) Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm guilty of adding content like this to several articles. I'd like to offer that for the most part I add companies that have articles on WP versus just listing everything from IAFD, AFD, etc. As for the content itself, the studio Wikilinks are links to a wealth of information regarding the industry, other performers, and other subjects. From a practical standpoint, I've added sentences containing this kind of content to paragraphs where I wanted to add a 3rd sentence. Two sentence paragraphs just seem flimsy to me. If group consensus finds fault with this and wants to remove it, I'm indifferent and will cease the practice. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You're not the only one who's added these. You haven't made any contributions to Lily Carter and that article also contains a random listing of companies she has worked for (career section, third sentence). I'm not sure where this trend first started, but I've been seeing it in articles for several years now, even since before I started editing on Wikipedia. WP:Too much detail states "Readers might lose interest when a portion of an article goes into too much detail on one specific aspect. Other times, readers might question how so much detail on something is important to the topic", which is exactly what I'm thinking when I come across these listings. We shouldn't list every company a performer has worked for for the same reason we don't list every film a performer has appeared in. Rebecca1990 (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't be listing every company, but a few can't hurt (especially some of the bigger ones like Vivid) that are not in the context that you referred to initially. But, like I said, I won't object to removal and/or trimming. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Listing every company a performer has worked for is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. Shortening the listings to only a few random companies would still be a problem because that gives WP:UNDUE weight to those companies. Companies should only be mentioned in a performers article if they are significant in their careers. I'll give you some examples of when it's ok to mention porn companies in a performer's biography:
Now, here's what I don't think is ok:
  • Yep, I think that's one of mine. Not sure why I added that, but in hindsight, I'd agree with your assessment. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion alert: "The removal of non notable awards on film articles"

There is a discussion at WT:WikiProject Film that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject: The removal of non notable awards on film articles.

The discussion has spread to WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard as well (see here), although I think that request is likely to be declined. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget this one, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Listing_of_porn_award_nominations. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • What a mess. I agree that the DR request above seems too soon and/or like at least a mild case of forum shopping. I do think at this late date that we probably need to start to wrap our minds around the concept that awards (or award nominations) from entities that don't have their own Wikipedia articles aren't going to be allowed to be mentioned on performer articles for very much longer (either officially or unofficially through Wikipedia policy). While I've never personally bought into the idea that all information in an individual's Wikipedia article needs to be notable on its own (we're supposed to be building an online encyclopedia, not tearing one apart) or that lists of awards & award nominations in adult performer's Wikipedia articles appear to give "undue weight" to that information, I've noted for quite some time that there is a distinct tendency for at least some Wikipedia editors and/or administrators that want those kind of adult performer articles to be as short as possible. I've also never bought into the idea that all citations used for awards or award nominations can't be from the awarding organization itself. While there seems to frequently be secondary sources available for some awards or award nominations, that's not always the case, and I'm still fine with that.
It may even be time for us to consider establishing some local guidelines along these lines...if an award or award nomination is not from a notable (blue-linked) organization, then it shouldn't be included in a Wikipedia article covered by this Project here. I seriously doubt that the Film Project is going to ever be able to come up with a laundry list of what organization's awards or award nominations should or should not be included in their Wikipedia articles. Guy1890 (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
There's now an RfC ("Do list items need their own WP article in order to be sourced in list articles?") over at WikiProject Film on these issues. Guy1890 (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

MyFreeCams.com up for deletion.

Does anybody have any insight into this? I think it must be notable within the industry -- Jenna Jameson was on cam there just the other night, and I have seen other top starlets on occasion. It has, naturally, been in the news some for various reasons. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"S&M (song)"

Just saw that it is this Wikiproject's one and only Featured Article... :)  — ₳aron 17:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Calvin999, And...? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I guess I'm just a bit surprised that it's never been mentioned or recognised after 18 months.  — ₳aron 07:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

List of Noticeboard and related Project discussions...

So anyone have an opinion as to where we should keep a list of Noticeboard discussions like this one...

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_51#Listing_of_porn_award_nominations

Seems like we've had several lately. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Lists of actors / actresses featured in pornographic films

Wikipedia has articles such as List of pornographic actresses by decade and I think that some of the actresses involved are fairly and accurately (in leau of using "porn star") described as pornographic actresses" However others are more regularly described with the more generic term "actress". I was wondering how using a title such as Lists of actresses featured in pornographic films (or similar) might affect content and whether this would be viable. GregKaye 19:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Rodney Moore (pornographic actor) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Rodney Moore (pornographic actor) to be moved to Rodney Moore (director). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Mention of non-notable awards in articles

I have come to the realization that perhaps it is not such a good idea to include just any award in an article. In the past, I have said that I agree with the inclusion of all properly sourced awards, regardless of notability, in articles, but this is because I didn't realize just how many of these insignificant "awards" existed. There are way too many porn "awards" that are given out simply by listing the recipients on some website page/blog and/or in an AVN/XBIZ press release. That is it, nothing else. No physical award ceremony for the "event" takes place. Examples of this include:

Some of the more successful porn stars in the industry have received so many awards from AVN/XBIZ/XRCO, etc. alone that also adding "awards" like the ones listed above to their article's awards sections would make them tedious. I see edit warring over the removal/inclusion of these "awards" on my watchlist daily. It needs to stop. So, here's my idea: we should only include non-notable awards if they meet two criteria:

  • 1. a secondary source listing the recipients exists
  • 2. a real physical ceremony is held for the awards.

For example, the Paul Raymond and UKAP awards listed at Samantha Bentley#Awards and nominations. The UKAP Award given to Bentley is even mentioned in a mainstream source! But "awards" like RISE and CAVR have got to go. They are unimportant and their mentions in articles are spam. So, what do you guys think? Should we require non-notable awards to be cited by a secondary source and be handed out at a ceremony in order for them to be mentioned in articles? Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Agree - As the creator of the recently deleted RISE award article, I think this is a sensible approach. We just have to get others on board and promote that we are doing this. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree It would help to go into our definitions in detail though (notability, secondary source, real physical ceremony). I'd also like to nail down the differences, if any, in how we treat awards won vs nominations. We should place notices that this discussion is going on to relevant policy/project/etc pages, get consensus here, take it to NPOVN or BLPN if we're having trouble getting consensus, then announce to the relevant policy/project/etc pages. --Ronz (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
As far as relevant projects and policy talk pages, what comes to mind are WT:PRIZE, WT:FILM, WT:FILMBIO, WT:BLP, WT:SPAM. Others? --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I've placed notices on the above talk pages, as well as three bio's where I'd already started discussions on this topic. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I've notified Guy1890 (talk · contribs) and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs), two active editors that have been involved in these disputes. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Ronz:, there 's already been somewhat extensive discussion about Nominations with regard to Notability, in short, they don't count towards WP:PORNBIO. But my view is that Nominations for major awards going forward are OK as long as they do not "overwhelm" the awards section and constitute the majority of it. If a performer has "a lot" of Nominations, maybe we can just list a few and then have an a number to represent the aggregate amount. This has been done in other articles like the List of awards and nominations received by Lady Gaga. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, nominations don't count toward notability.
So treat them like awards, until they overwhelm the actual awards. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Disagree for same reasons stated in the other discussions. See WP:NLISTITEM: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". Content coverage within a given article is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. Notability is not a content policy (with a few exceptions). Explain to me how I can "prove" that an award is notable if it never had an article? How can I defend that an award is notable short of being forced to create an article and then see counter-parites try to AfD it so that it won't be considered notable? It's a nightmare approach that goes against the content policies. I understand the problem, but using our Notability guidelines to shape content will lead to strife and create more problems than it solves. There are other ways to go about it. -- GreenC 16:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    The notability guideline is only a part of the solution, and notability is a good indication that there are enough sources that demonstrate the subject is worth mention per WP:DUE. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a deceptively easy solution that creates more problems than solves. For example, how am I supposed to "prove" an award is notable if there has never been a Wikipedia article created for that award? The assumption that no article = non-notable is not supported by the Notability guidelines, or any guideline. How are we supposed to debate the notability of a non-existent article? There is no mechanism unlike the AfD process with formal procedures and rulings. It would put a huge amount of power in the hands of deletionists and put inclusionists at a severe disadvantage and is fundamentally unfair. What if an award does have an article but someone seeks to AfD that article as part of a campaign to remove those award listings in other articles. A single AfD could take out the award from 100s of articles. AfD is not set up to deal with that kind of deletion activity. It breaks the principals of the content policies. -- GreenC 00:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Have you read the full description, because the answer is there. We don't prove an award is notable. If it is notable, it is included. If it is not notable, it requires a secondary source and a physical award ceremony. --Ronz (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
GC, I think Rebecca's goal here is just to come up with a stable list of awards that we can routinely cite for each performer as they apply. The same will go for nominations, but the performer's Notability will have already been established based on other factors. As these other awards meet our criteria or get better press, we can re-evaluate them and their Notability, write articles if applicable, and then add those awards as well. I really don't think this proposal will lessen the amount of new articles about Porn performers than we do now. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You can't mention something that isn't notable as if its meaningful. My solution? Award wins or nominations with articles get mentioned. Nothing else. Spartaz Humbug! 18:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Disagree per Green Cardamom's reasoning and previous discussions cited. Hanswar32 (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    Could you please indicate which discussions, provide diffs, provide quotes, or summarize those discussions? Further, could you indicate specifically what you disagree with? Just the notability issue that Green Cardamom brought up, or something more? --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    These are some of the various discussions that have taken place in the past ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17] and [18]). These awards may not be as notable as the major awards, but I disagree with their classification as quintessentially non-notable since the threshold for notability of porn awards is unlike other comparisons. I also disagree with Rebecca1990's new opinion specifically with the two conditions she suggests we place for includion of the mentioned awards. I support her and Scalhotrod's former opinion of including all properly sourced award wins. With regards to nominations, I think this quote from my talkpage in response to Rebecca1990 summarizes my opinion: "I said that I agreed with you for the most part and those edits in Ashley Long's article were made prior to reading your middle-ground opinion. I obviously recognize that if we were to add every single nomination that can be found to articles, that this would clutter many articles and I never intended to do that. If you'll notice, all of Ashley Long's wins and nominations in her relatively short career have been accounted for and so completing it, imo, is of encyclopedic value. Missy Monroe's article follows the same rationale, and nowhere have I attempted such non-sense of adding every single nomination for every single award available to every single pornstar article in existence. In fact, I haven't made a single edit to an article since reading your opinion. In the interest of finding a balanced approach to appease both sides, I'll let the nominations go for now" Hanswar32 (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    Much appreciated. There's no consensus in any of those discussions that I can see, and they're rather short on policy-based arguments so unlikely to gain the wide consensus required.
    Alternatively, we can just follow BLP and require reliable, independent, secondary sources demonstrating due weight for each award and award nomination. Otherwise it doesn't deserve mention. This would solve Green Cardamom's concerns as well. Of course, we'd be hard pressed to find such sources for the majority of the entries in the current articles. So instead we're here trying to find something more inclusive. --Ronz (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a very long discussion over at WP:Film and a new one over at WP:VPP that deal with the same question: "Should non-notable awards be added to list of award articles". To repeat myself and others that I agree with: What are notable awards? Awards that have or should have (but currently don't have) a Wikipedia article (and thus satisfying notability guidelines). Why should we limit them? Because if a local elementary school gives an award to actor Philip Seymour Hoffman and it was covered by some local newspaper, should an article such as List of awards and nominations received by Philip Seymour Hoffman add that award to the list. The side not wanting to add non-notable awards cited WP:CSC#1 ("Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment.") as adding non-notable awards to such a list serves only those non-notable organizations which as a consequence become notable not because of what they do, but because they have Wikipedia mentions. Since this not only a WP:Porn or WP:Film question, it would be better if we kept the discussion in the same place (Either where its already very long in WP:Film, or globally WP:VPP). --Gonnym (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Gonnym, while its great that there are other conversations taking place elsewhere, this one is happening because Porn is NOT a mainstream subject and does not typically have the coverage that even a elementary school award may receive. Furthermore, WP:NOTABLE clearly states that it does NOT apply to article content. Put simply, the more popular a performer is, the more things (awards, etc.) they will be associated with. Since we don't know who will be the next Marilyn Chambers, Jenna Jameson, or Sasha Grey, there should not be so much resistance to adding sourced content for something as banal as a "win" for an award. Right now we are trying to establish what's worthy or not for THIS project. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Porn awards should be required to pass the guidelines as other topics do. Regarding WP:NOTABLE, to copy Alsee's comment (which I believe sums this up good) from WP:FILM: "WP:NLISTITEM is quite clear that The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content, but then it adds (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). WP:LISTN says essentially the same thing. If a list does not have a clear List Selection Criteria then the relevant Common Selection Criteria are either (1) Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article or (3) Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. I have seen cases of companies arranging to give themselves fake awards. That makes lists of merely "verifiable awards" utterly useless to our readers. If a list does not have consensus for clearly defined inclusion criteria, then the general issues of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:PROMOTIONAL overwhelmingly weigh in favor of awards-lists being notable-only." Also, regarding famous porn star and awards, that argument is meaningless, as this is a WP:NOTINHERITED argument. You are trying to argue that since the performer is popular and gets the awards, then the awards should be listed. But the awards aren't notable and have nothing to do with who they gave an award to. Lastly, just to add my vote to yet another discussion regarding this - Agree to limit awards to only notable awards. --Gonnym (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Gonnym, fair enough, but Porn performer articles are not on equal ground with other similar ones otherwise WP:PORNBIO wouldn't exist. As for selection criteria, that's the purpose of this discussion, so thank you for participating. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree - pure spam and totally irrelevant. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Despite the recent plethora of discussions on these basic topics, I've not changed my mind on the idea that if an award or award nomination is not from a notable (blue-linked) organization, then it shouldn't be included in a Wikipedia article covered by this Project here. The problem, at this late date, is that a decision like that can be (and likely, unfortunately will be) challenged by larger WikiProjects and/or portions of the Wiki-bureaucracy.
That WikiProject Film discussion appears to likely be going nowhere, and who knows where the more recent VPP discussion will go, if anywhere.
I've never personally bought into the idea that all information in an individual's Wikipedia article needs to be notable on its own, that lists of awards & award nominations in adult performer Wikipedia articles appear to give "undue weight" to that information, and that all citations used for awards or award nominations can't be from the awarding organization itself. Just about any piece of information included in just about any Wikipedia article could be considered "promotional". Heck, using a New York Times citation for something could be perceived as trying to drum up readership for that specific type of media. Those kind of discussions are bottomless pits to nowhere IMHO.
"How can I defend that an award is notable short of being forced to create an article and then see counter-parites try to AfD it so that it won't be considered notable?"..."What if an award does have an article but someone seeks to AfD that article as part of a campaign to remove those award listings in other articles." Welcome to the unfortunate world of the Wikipedia Pornography Project my friend...enjoy the bad faith and/or POV-pushing (by some - like right here: "Alternatively, we can just follow BLP and require reliable, independent, secondary sources demonstrating due weight for each award and award nomination. Otherwise it doesn't deserve mention.") in advance...  ;) Guy1890 (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on notability of awards

Since the discussion has stalled, and I'm confused by the opposition to the proposal:

Is anyone against including notable awards, where WP:N has been met? Please note that this is a standard inclusion criteria for lists, and we're discussing lists of awards. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone disputing the exclusion of the specific awards listed?

As another attempt to get some consensus out of this discussion, is anyone arguing for the inclusion of any of the specific awards listed above? --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposing removal from articles all mention of the awards above

I'm going to be a bit bolder here given the lack of responses to my comments above. Here are the awards again. Anyone against deletion of these? --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean just following up on the initial proposal by removing mention of the awards. If any of these awards have their own articles, that's another problem. I'm saying that we go ahead and follow Rebecca1990's proposal by removing the entries for these awards from all articles. --Ronz (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


  • Against Since none of us have a WP:Crystal ball, we have no way of knowing the future importance (or not) or these awards to the industry. In the absence of a clear policy based rationale, there's seemingly no logical or common sense reason to delete sourced content. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
    The policy is BLP, which places the burden on those arguing for inclusion.
    That's not what CRYSTAL says or is for. Rather, the hope that these awards might someday be more notable is a CRYSTAL violation (and OR for that matter). --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The "win" of an award is just a statistic. If there's a source, it can be added. Pending the outcome of this overall discussion for baseline criteria, awards wins from ongoing and/or established programs are just content that needs to be sourced like anything else. But if you're so concerned with BLP and anything you consider non-Notable, there are a great many non-porn BLP articles with a lot of trivia that likely few Users will challenge or notice you removing that content from. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
"If there's a source, it can be added" No consensus for that.
I'm surprised we're having this discussion. Are you changing your opinion in support of the original proposal then [19]? As I've clarified, all I'm asking is that we go ahead and cleanup the entries for awards that you agreed should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Just list them at AFD and see how they go. There is clearly no chance of compromise or WikiProject:PORN exercising some restraint so just ask the wider community what they think. What a shame, I honestly thought at first that this was going to be the moment when this wikiproject grew up and stepped out of their inclusionist walled garden, Spartaz Humbug! 18:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - These two discussions still appear to be going nowhere anytime soon...although I would like to see them resolved in some way, shape, or form before I would personally feel comfortable moving ahead with any more mass-deletions of this kind of material (not that the editors that have been doing that kind of work so far will be waiting at all). None of the above-mentioned awards appear to have any current articles on English Wikipedia, and I've still never seen a pornography-related article kept at AfD merely because of an award win from a non-notable organization. The CAVR Award has at least couple of non-English articles as does at least one of the RogReviews Awards, but that doesn't really count for anything here. The Juliland Awards are, I guess, associated with Juli Ashton in some way, but I don't know how that really matters. The mention of these kind of awards on English Wikipedia still appear to be numbered it seems, and I don't really have much of problem with that at this late date, since they really never added much of anything to articles here IMHO. Guy1890 (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    I'd rather just follow BLP. If we someday get consensus to include some or most of it, we deal with it then. If we want to start with entries that are the least likely to meet any future inclusion standards, so much the better. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
No, you'd really rather just follow your own version of whatever your own interpretation of "BLP" is that allows you to remove as much article content as possible, as per usual. Guy1890 (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Care to WP:FOC? You are aware that we determine consensus by following policy. BLP is pretty clear about what to do with poorly sourced information. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, what you never seem to be aware of is that a "primary source" is not another way to spell "bad source", and, of course, we're not always even talking about primary sources as citations for award wins in pornography-related articles at all. In other words, there really aren't any valid "BLP" concerns here. Guy1890 (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Please FOC. Your incorrect assumptions about others reflect poorly on you and your opinions. They're poor sources. --Ronz (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Disagree To my understanding, according to WP:PAG, you can't create a blanket rule for content exclusion at WikiProject level or anywhere else, other than by altering the relevant core policy or guideline itself with a high level of consensus (WP:PROPOSAL). If any of the awards listed above don't seem to merit inclusion for whatever reason, that can be handled at the per article level. Removing content because it does not have its own article, or does not potentially meet notability criteria, is explicitly discouraged by the WP:NNC section of WP:N: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." If content is scrutinized under the stricter sourcing standard of WP:BLP, that can also be done at the article level. Attempts to make the preferences of a few editors into guidelines that conflict with site-wide guidance is discouraged (WP:POLCON) and a generally bad idea, as for one, it opens up the possibility of multiple versions of policy for any number of special cases all across Wikpedia. --Tsavage (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
We've a list of citations. The proposal is to remove them or any like them. There's nothing in any policy preventing us from doing so. Plenty in multiple policies backing their removal and placing the burden on those who want to include any of them. --Ronz (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Transponders

hi every one please<wantto know how to see adult tv channels on Hotbird.In Middle East.like transponders, frequency,..etc --88.86.19.178 (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

CNBC's Dirty Dozen list

CNBC publishes a list titled "The Dirty Dozen" every year ([20], [21], [22], [23], & [24]), which lists the top 12 porn stars at the moment. WP articles on porn stars that have been placed on the list often mention it. HW is now going around removing this info from articles ([25], [26], & [27]) with the edit summary "inaccurately ascribed to CNBC, opinion of NN blogger/stringer not employed by CNBC". What does he even mean? "inaccurately ascribed to CNBC"? How is "Haze was placed on CNBC's yearly list "The Dirty Dozen: Porn's Most Popular Stars" in 2012 and 2013" "inaccurately ascribed to CNBC" when it is clearly sourced to CNBC lists titled "The Dirty Dozen 2012: Porn's Most Popular Stars" and "The Dirty Dozen 2013 – Porn's Most Popular Stars"? The "opinion of NN blogger/stringer not employed by CNBC" comment that he made against the journalist who writes these lists is just another attempt from him to discredit CNBC's Dirty Dozen list (he's tried it at least once before, during Gracie Glam's AfD). CNBC's Dirty Dozen lists are extremely accurate (e.g. the 2014 list, which was published before any of the AVN/XBIZ/XRCO awards took place, basically predicted who the winners would be. All 12 performers listed won at least one AVN, XBIZ, or XRCO after the list was published). There's no reason to remove this info from articles. This type of info can be found in almost every mainstream celebrity's article (e.g. "Jolie was among the Time 100, a list of the most influential people in the world as published by Time, in 2006 and 2008. She was named the world's most powerful celebrity in Forbes‍ '​s Celebrity 100 issue in 2009, and, though ranked lower overall, was listed as the most powerful actress from 2006–08 and 2011–13. Forbes additionally cited her as Hollywood's highest-paid actress in 2009, 2011, and 2013, with estimated annual earnings of $27 million, $30 million, and $33 million respectively."), so we should include it in porn star's articles as well. Porn star's should not be treated any differently from mainstream celebrities on WP. Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't think I'd agree that pornstar = mainstream celebrity but I'm pleased to see you now recognise that articles for porn performers need to meet the GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 19:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a well-settled general issue, and has been covered, inter alia, in at least one AFD where Rebecca took part and didn't express any disagreement. The listed is not prepared by CNBC or its staff, but comes from an independent/freelance content supplier. Its writer does not appear to be notable. It is plainly improper to credit the content to CNBC, just like it is improper to credit the views of a syndicated columnist to a newspaper which publishes them, or the positions in an op-ed piece to the publication where it appears. This is a Reliable Sources 101 matter, the kind of thing students learn when writing papers in high school. There are no special rules for porn in this regard, and bringing it to this project rather than an appropriate general notice board borders on canvassing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Might it make sense to restore the information but credit it directly to Chris Morris? At this point he's at least a step up from a random blogger given that CNBC endorses his op-ed lists at least enough to publish them annually. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
HW, you claim that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gracie Glam reached a consensus to remove mentions of being placed in CNBC's Dirty Dozen list from articles when it didn't. You made that argument, and so did Redban, a user that was blocked for his disruptive behavior of starting multiple AfD's for notable porn stars, including Gracie Glam. Your opinion and Redban's aren't enough to establish a consensus. Also in Gracie Glam's AfD, Cavarrone states during his "Speedy Keep" vote that "CNBC is an unquestionably a reliable source as discussed multiple times on WP:RSN, and being included in a 'top-pornstar list' CNBC article is possibly an additional claim of notability, surely not a reason for deletion." Cavarrone also replied to your attempts to discredit CNBC's Dirty Dozen list and the only thing he agreed with you on was that Chris Morris is a freelance journalist. The last reply Cavarrone left you in that AfD ended in "he's a valid source for factual information, not for his opinions," so you did not convince him at any point to discredit that source as well. And CNBC's Dirty Dozen list is in fact factual information, not Morris's opinions. The lists explain how the listed porn stars were chosen (e.g. 2015 list: "we've once again assembled a list of the most popular porn stars. This year, however, we've switched up our methodology to incorporate not just the industry's opinion of them but the fans', as well. We began, as we always do, by determining who has earned the most nominations in the annual AVN and Xbiz awards (the industry's two highest-profile awards shows). From that list, we looked at a three-month average of the stars' Google Trends ranking, taking our "dirty dozen" from the top scoring personalities."). These aren't lists of Chris Morris's personal favorite porn stars, research is actually done to compile these lists. Also, if these lists were of Chris Morris's favorite porn stars, why are there men on it (Evan Stone & James Deen)? Rebecca1990 (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • HW, comparing an article by a freelance writer/journalist for an outlet to syndication is a false analogy. When someone freelances for an outlet, the news outlet usually takes ownership of the copyright. Syndication entails a license. As for everyone else, when HW clarified his objections to the CNBC attribution on the Bobbi Starr article, I changed it to "Starr was listed on CNBC.com as one of the 12 most popular stars in porn". Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Colby Keller

A draft in the wheelhouse of your WikiProject is up for review, and I'd like some input. There seems to be some decent coverage, but not enough to denote notability in my mind (though I'm still on the fence). Hence, I thought I would get a second opinion from this project. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: page has been accepted, but could still use a look from someone in the project for accuracy and tweaking. Primefac (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Question: "is the stage name of" in lede

Just wondering: Why do so many porn star articles say something like "Eve Pornstar is the stage name of a pornographic actress"? It seems like an odd thing to note, unless you're also giving a real name ("Eve Pornstar is the stage name of June Smith, a pornographic actress...") I think most people know that names used in porn are usually not real. The Honorable (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Preferred disambiguator: "actor/actress" or "pornographic actor/actress"?

NAC:This one is clear. We don't use "pornographic" when there is only one actor or actress with that name. The person is an actor or actress. We haven't addressed the question of two actors or actresses in different genres, but that wasn't raised. Don't use "pornographic" unnecessarily. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There are currently move request discussions at Talk:Aja (pornographic actress) and Talk:Savannah (pornographic actress) involving the disambiguator used in those articles' titles. If you wish to comment please do so on the respective talk pages.

However, in cases such as these where there is only one actor or actress with a particular name, I was wondering if there is an institutional preference at Wikipedia for "actor/actress" or "pornographic actor/actress" as a disambiguator? —  AjaxSmack  15:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Film may be pornographic, actors or actresses are NOT. The usage is derogatory and cannot be condoned, especially in a BLP. Instead of this terminology, pornographic film actor/actress should be used. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I would say that pornographic actress violates WP:PRECISE if actress would be sufficient to disambiguate. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Betty Logan: I understand this thought, and normally would believe this line of thinking as well. Also, I agree with the guideline WP:NOTCENSORED. However, the problem with removing "pornographic" from this disambiguator is that all pages on Wikipedia (except for pages in the "Draft:" namespace) are indexed by default, meaning that if the "pornographic" word was removed from the disambiguator, it will be how the article name shows up when searched with search engines such as Google or Bing. Adding the word "pornographic" to the article name most likely triggers some sort of filter within these search engines to make sure that the correct audiences see these pages. That, and I figure that if the community (us) enforce guidelines that result in the Wikimedia Foundation using less volunteer money/donations to protect itself from legal disputes, the better. Steel1943 (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, I am aware that this has no bearing on the subject if they are the primary topic, but then again, if the subject is the primary topic, then there is assumed to be no question what the subject the reader is looking for if they are to look up the name of the subject. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Cherryblossom1982, put it as brilliantly and succinctly as I've ever seen, "Film may be pornographic, actors or actresses are NOT", its what they do, not who they are. Furthermore, in the "Aja" discussion, I feel that GregKaye makes an excellent point that one of the largest print encyclopedias, Britannica, subtitles Linda Lovelace as an American actress. I realize that Wikipedia is independent, but the precedent is there. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Actor/actress", unless further disambiguation is needed with a mainstream actor/actress of the same name. This is per WP:NCDAB and WP:PRECISE. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 22:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Definitely actor/actress. There's no need to use the "pornographic" qualifier unless we absolutely have to. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 07:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Actor or Actor/actress, clearly. For disambiguation, the extra precision is not particularly useful (how many instances of "non-porn" and "porn" actors with identical names?), and it is difficult to administer: what is the standard to distinguish a "regular" actor from a "pornographic actor," does one porn film and one non-porn film qualify, or 2:1, 5:1, only 100% porn; is there widely recognized porn actor accreditation (that also disallows acting in "non-porn"), or vice versa? Also, adopting that convention begs proliferation: if (pornographic actor), then (runway model), (catalog model), (hand model), and so forth? Acting is the all-encompassing job title and seems quite sufficient. --Tsavage (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Actor/Actress, as per WP:CONCISE and other comments above, unless disambiguation is needed with another actor/actress. Alsee (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Protests on Adult bios Entry denials

This is getting bad, net starting to get angry, doing this as anon as no-one seems to be willing to address the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.243.24.147 (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Aja (actress) settled, now what?

OK, so now that Aja has been moved to Aja (actress), now what? Does this have farther reaching ramifications or not? Do we now have an "'Aja' Article Naming Guideline"? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

  • No, that was an odd-one out close against the others, and the talk here, sorry, is an example of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS In ictu oculi (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Did you join the Project when I wasn't looking? We know your views, I'm asking the other project members. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 09:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm a contributor to WP Film I know you're trying to gather support here. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually I'm trying to stimulate discussion amongst the Project Members most directly involved. What's your motive or intention? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
My motive is to avoid WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and my intention is to encourage you to seek wider consensus before more undiscussed moves and non-admin RM closes contrary to established (dab). In ictu oculi (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There's unfortunately a somewhat heated discussion about these "issues" ongoing (in front of a lot of Wikipedia administrators) here. I suggest to all that they stop edit warring & forum shopping and let the articles stay where they are until a much wider consensus develops over these (very minor IMHO) issues. This isn't worth all of the effort being put into it by all sides, and it may not end well for some involved editors at all. This isn't worth it people... Guy1890 (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I redirected people here to avoid having everything discussed in different forums. But if a consensus cannot be made, I'm fine with leaving the articles where they were before that discussion started. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: As seen here and here, I alerted WP:Film and WP:Actor to this discussion. Judging by Betty's commentary above, it seems that WP:Film was already alerted; I think something was noted there before about these disputes. Flyer22 (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I think article topics should be considered on a case by case basis. As I have mentioned elsewhere, Britannica inc. lists Linda Lovelace (American actress). No means by way of criticism but some pornstars, female and male, have very little acting content in their work and may as well be very evocative method mime artists. This comes in a context in which I personally consider characters like Sean Connery to be great film performers who, themselves, may arguably do little by way of acting. GregKaye 09:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Almost all (pornographic actress) & (pornographic actor) titles have been moved to (actress) & (actor)

The only ones left are:

Discussions

Please see the current discussions at Talk:Cytherea (pornographic actress)#Requested move 27 April 2015 and Talk:Hillary Scott (pornographic actress)#Requested move 27 April 2015. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

More discussions taking place:
Talk:Rodney Moore (pornographic actor) discussion resulted in "No consensus". A new discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 June. Please, if you're reading this, participate. The small number of participants in Rodney Moore's discussion is ridiculous in comparison to the huge turnout we had for discussions on female performers. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
What's taking so long?

At least a week has passed since all of these discussions began. How come none of them have been closed yet? Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It's been TWO WEEKS since discussions for Cytherea, Hillary Scott, and Rodney Moore began. Why haven't they been closed yet?! Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Seven days is the minimum time limit for closing a discussion. Many of them can stay open longer than that. However, if they are still open after 30 days you can file a close request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. It's a pain in the ass having to wait a month (I've just had to sit out a dead RFC myself) but that's basically the process. Betty Logan (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What about using Peter North (XXX Actor)or(XXX Video Producer)? [[User:--Hankfrealy (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)hankfrealy|hankfrealy]]

Peter North

We all know that consensus overwhelmingly favors the use of (actress)/(actor) over (pornographic actress)/(pornographic actor), but what about "(pornographer)". I'm taking about Peter North's article, which is currently titled Peter North (pornographer). Is this an appropriate title, or should it be renamed to Peter North (actor)? Rebecca1990 (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Randy Kryn and Cavarrone, since you have both said in (pornographic actress)/(actress) discussions that having "pornographic" in article titles was akin to a scarlet letter ([28] & [29]), I'd like to hear your thoughts on the current title of Peter North's article, Peter North (pornographer). Rebecca1990 (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

What about Leslie Glass?

Should Leslie Glass (adult model) be moved to Leslie Glass (model)? Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should a person who has appeared in exclusively pornographic films be described as "(actor/-tress)" or "(pornographic actor/-tress)"?

The simple question is whether a person who has appeared in exclusively pornographic films be described as "(actor/-tress)" or "(pornographic actor/-tress)" in their article's title. Arguments for include brevity, and against cite the misleading nature of the industry/role. A wide-ranging RfC should settle this, rather than piecemeal move discussions that only attract several editors at most. 02:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

(actor/-tress)

  1. actor/actress We don't differentiate between stage actors and screen actors, nor among actors by genre. I don't see why we should use "pornographic" unless necessary for disambiguation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
    Because "pornographic actress" is frequently a euphemism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
    The point is, they are not professional actors and are not notable for their acting skills; nobody cares how well or badly they act. They are notable for being physically attractive and being willing to perform sex acts in front of a camera. They are in the sex industry, not the mainstream movie industry. Lumping them in together with professional actors just debases the meaning of the term. Gatoclass (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    A lot of pornographic actors appeared/appear in mainstream films (eg. see List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films and List of mainstream actors who have appeared in pornographic films), TV series, commercials, music videos, variety shows, stage plays etc. In countries like Japan "mainstream" and porn are absolutely interconnected, and it is hard to find an "AV Idol" who has not (at least) a dozen mainstream films, TV dramas and/or V-Cinema releases in their curricula. The "acting skill" argument is a complete nonsense, to be kind: I could easily name dozens of "mainstream" stars or pseudostars with zero talent who had success/found work only thanks to their supposed attractiveness. Cavarrone 13:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    Porn stars are not actors, they are sex workers. The fact that they get filmed performing sex acts does not make them actors. If a sex worker graduates to mainstream cinema, they can probably be considered a legitimate actor, just as one of your mainstream stars "with zero talent" can be considered an actor in the same circumstance. I don't think our audience would be expecting to find porn stars lumped together with professional actors, because they are in fundamentally different industries and their categorization should reflect that. Gatoclass (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    Being sex workers does not preclude being actors. As long as they recite some lines, portray a character, star in FILMS which have a director, an editor, a cinematographer, a screenplay (thin or larger that is), a producer and a distributor, they are actors. As long as awards regularly consider and reward their acting skills and not just their actractiveness (eg awards for best actor/actress, or even AVN Awards for best actor/actress in a non-sex role) they are actors. As long as most of the notable actors (ie the ones who have an article on WP) quite regularly have appeared in mainstream films, TV series, music videos, commercials, they are actors. As long as pornographic films were/are sometimes re-edited, with the porn part cut out, as to be released/broadcast as standard erotic films, they are actors. As long as category:pornographic films is a sub-category of films and category:pornographic actors is a sub-category of actors, they are actors. I don't question mainstream and pornographic industry are different industries, but both produce films and use actors, and often connect with each other. Not less than theatre which is a different industry from cinema, but also uses actors. Acting is acting, it's something neutral, it does not imply you have to act in the mainstream against the niche, or you have to make some training, or you have to star in family-oriented projects, or high profile productions. The same about your argument about professionalism: even amateur actors are actually actors, eg Enzo Staiola, Lamberto Maggiorani and all the amateur actors of the Italian neorealism are actually considered and categorized as actors. --Cavarrone 20:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    I think Liz below has made the point better than I did. Gatoclass (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    "I don't think our audience would be expecting to find porn stars lumped together with professional actors, because they are in fundamentally different industries and their categorization should reflect that." What????? We are talking about article titles here, not categories. No need to worry about categorization, all porn stars will remain in the American female pornographic film actors category, no one here is arguing that they shouldn't. But, look at the American actresses category, which isn't supposed to contain any articles, only subcategories. Here are some of the subcategories WP has for mainstream actresses: American film actresses, American silent film actresses, American voice actresses, American stage actresses, American musical theatre actresses, American television actresses, and American soap opera actresses. Would you agree with moving Mary Arden (actress) to Mary Arden (film actress), Jane Grey (actress) to Jane Grey (silent film actress), Chad Morgan (actress) to Chad Morgan (voice actress), Kelly Garrett (actress) to Kelly Garrett (stage actress), Melissa Hart (actress) to Melissa Hart (musical theatre actress), Kristen Dalton (actress) to Kristen Dalton (television actress), and Lisa Brown (actress) to Lisa Brown (soap opera actress)? If not, then why should porn actress article titles say "(pornographic actress)"? Even though we separate actors by type of acting in categories, we don't specify the type of acting they do in their article's title, per WP:CONCISE, a guideline that applies to all articles, including porn actors. Rebecca1990 (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    I was using the word "categorization" in the broad sense, not the Wikipedia sense, though I should have realized the comment would be open to misinterpretation. In response to your other point, it has already been dealt with by myself and several others, namely, that pornographic "actors" are not trained actors and are not in the acting profession but in the sex industry. Gatoclass (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. actor/actress in article titles per non-differentiation and genre. Wikipedia calls someone who is paid to act, is directed by a director, is given a script, and is made-up, filmed, and appears in the credits of a film, an actor or actress, regardless of movie genre. Titles probably should reflect this. Randy Kryn 10:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. actor/actress. I don't have much more to say than the previous 2 !votes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. actor/actress. If they are notable enough for inclusion here, and they are known for their acting, pornographic or not, then I don't see the necessity to add the 'pornographic' adjective. The only exception should be in the case of a pornographic actor/actress having the same name as a non-pornographic actor/actress. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. actor/actress in article titles, unless further disambiguation is needed with a mainstream actor/actress of the same name. This is per WP:NCDAB and WP:PRECISE, not to mention the consensus in almost every move discussion. In the article body I don't have a strong preference either way. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 16:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    You mean WP:CONCISE? Precision is describing things or persons more, while concision is describing less. George Ho (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. actor/actress seems to be most consistent with WP:PRECISE in cases where the subject does not need to be disambiguated from other actors. In the example given at WP:NATURAL, the guideline states it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term "Queen". That seems analogous to the situation here, and no compelling reason has been given as to why "actor/actress" provides inadequate disambiguation. Betty Logan (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    See my above reply to other editor. George Ho (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  7. actor/actress per above reasonings. I'm also wondering how "(pornographic actress)"/"(pornographic actor)" titles even became a thing on Wikipedia to begin with. We don't include "porn" or "pornographic" in titles for porn films (Babysitters is Babysitters (film), not Babysitters (pornographic film)), porn directors (Jonathan Morgan is Jonathan Morgan (director), not Jonathan Morgan (porn director)), porn studios (Evil Angel is Evil Angel (studio), not Evil Angel (porn studio)), or porn magazines (Penthouse is Penthouse (magazine), not Penthouse (porn magazine)), so why do it for porn actors? Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  8. Actor/actress per #1 here. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  9. Actor/Actress, why specify in the disambiguation. Acting is acting, no need to say it is tv acting, or theater acting, or pornographic acting, etc.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  10. actor/actress per the above reasoning. Attempting to separate them from other types of actor is just POV pushing.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  11. Actor/Actress Pornographic films are a genre, of you guessed it, films. People who star in films are regarded as "actors". People who star in pornographic films are all in IMDB, the film database. Much the same as Western (genre) film actors we wouldn't tag John Wayne with John Wayne (Western (genre) actor), we do not tag people with (pop singer)/(rock singer), we're not Nathaniel Hawthorne, they're not Hester Prynne, let's not give them a Scarlett Letter GuzzyG (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  12. Actor/Actress. WP:PRECISE does not require such additional disambiguation in the title. Pornographic actors are actually actors, Category:American pornographic film actors includes actors who had established mainstream careers and very short venues in adult industry, and similarly categories such as Category:20th-century American actors include both adult and mainstream actors, without any division. A lot of them appear/appeared on mainstream films (eg see List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films), TV series, commercials, music videos, stage works etc. Also, pornographic films are often re-edited, with the porn part cut out, as to be released/broadcast as standard erotic films. The article about acting describes actors as people portraying characters in films, speaking written text, using voice and speech skills, physical expressivity, emotional facility, body language etc. for their parts. All things that pornographic actors regularly do. Also, the argument about someone referred to as "pornographic actor/ress" is not actually referred as an "actor/ress" does not make any sense, so when some actors are labeled "child actors", "commercial actors" or "stage actors" are not they actually actors? As long as we don't have Robert Gordon (silent film actor), Bob Steele (western genre actor) or Harry Shannon (character actor) having (pornographic actor) would be an undue double standard we should apply in the title only for pornographic actors, and double standards are something a neutral encyclopedia should avoid. Cavarrone 10:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  13. Actor/Actress - No need for "Pornographic Actor/Actress" anymore - Acting is acting whether it's in Theatres, TV shows or Porno films it's still acting at the end of the day. –Davey2010Talk 01:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  14. Support - I was going to support the other method. However, I realize that, even when a reader does not know much about a porn star, extra precision/disambiguation is unnecessary and discouraged. In some cases, if there is more than one actor of the same name, exempli gratia Michael Brandon and Michael Brandon (pornographic actor), extra precision is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talk • contribs) 13 July 2015

(pornographic actor/-tress)

  1. Pornographic actor/actress since it is their only form of filmography credits, and oftentimes is never released to television or theaters. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Pornographic actor/actress mainstream sources typically do not call people who star mostly in pornographic films "actors" or "actresses."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Pornographic actor/actress. Actor & Pornographic film actor are quite distinct articles and occupations, sister topics under Category:Entertainment occupations; Pornographic film actor is not a subset of actor. The omission of "pornographic" serves to mislead readers acessing only the title. As a rule of thumb, suggest only pornographic film actor subjects with entries in the Internet Movie Database should be allowed the the term "actor/actress". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC) If any independent reliable sources calls the subject an actor/actress, that would be sufficient. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
    What do you mean by "the omission of 'pornographic' serves to mislead readers acessing only the title"? Are you saying that readers browsing any non-porn category where porn stars can be found (e.g. Category:Living people) should always know which articles are about porn stars so they can avoid clicking on it if they are anti-porn? Don't you understand how flawed that logic is? The vast majority of notable porn stars do not require an (actress)/(pornographic actress) disambiguation because they have unique names that aren't shared with any other topic on Wikipedia. What do you suppose we do about those? Should we move Jenna Jameson to Jenna Jameson (pornographic actress) and Sasha Grey to Sasha Grey (pornographic actress) even though there are no other topics on Wikipedia by those names to differentiate them from? Should we add "(pornographic actress)" as a "NSFW" warning to ALL porn star articles just to avoid offending conservative readers? Well too bad for them because Wikipedia is not censored! Also, ALL porn stars have entries on IMDb, where they are classified as "Actress" under their names. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support - but why not just refer to them as porn star since that is by far the most common name associated with such people. I also think it's just plain silly to refer to these people solely as "actors" or "actresses" when whatever acting talents they may have are clearly incidental to their career. Gatoclass (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. Yes Unless sources refer to them as actor or actresses then we should go with the clear description. I don't think porn performing is is a recognised Acting system. Spartaz Humbug! 21:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    You don't have to make a "recognised" (by whom?) training to be an actor. Maybe you should actually read the article you have linked before writing such inaccurate assertions. Cavarrone 21:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    Recognised by reliable independent sources. If a source describes someone as an actor then we call them an actor. Perhaps you could show me the part of the article on acting that describes having sex for money as acting? Spartaz Humbug! 17:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    Comment: People v. Freeman - The California Supreme Court says it's acting, good enough source? Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    good enough source that porn isn't prostitution but I never said it was. It's no source that porn is acting. Spartaz Humbug! 18:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    The decision specifically refers to them as "actors". Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    Just commenting on People v. Freeman, even if this says what you say it does (haven't read it), this still just means by California law (is it even like this in all 50 states? and federal law?) this counts as acting. You still have the other part of the world, which might not call it acting. Long story short: that ruling is not a valid point. --Gonnym (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  6. Pornographic actor/actress is the best choice. There is a commonality between voice, stage, television and film acting that is not shared with pornographic actors/actresses. The importance of plot, character development and dialogue is central to the acting profession and have little to no place in pornographic films. Given the short length of most porn stars "careers", it is often brief phase of the person's life and they do not transition into the mainstream acting profession. Given that there are colleges, departments, institutes and studios that train mainstream actors/actresses, I don't see how any equivalence can be made to individuals whose acting range consists of being filmed having different varieties of sex.Liz Read! Talk! 16:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support, but prefer alternative, "adult entertainer" or "pornographic entertainer". Yet another way to eliminate a pointless gender division in article titles. The division, however, between porn and non-porn is not pointless at all; it's a separate field of performance, with little in common with theatre and screen acting in the usual sense. Porn up into the late 1970s mostly tended to also have some regular acting in it, but that seems to be a largely lost hybrid.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  8. Pornographic actor/actress the term is not derogatory. The term just notes their specialization. Most mainstream media and other sources still refer to them as such I don't see the issue. Most mainstream actors won't do pornogrophic film and most pornngraphic actress won't do mainstream movies. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  9. Support Although agree with sentiments that rather than porn actor/actress it would make more sense to use the common name porn star or adult entertainer. People who do porn, do not act, or if they do, it's not their profession or specialty, their job is to be filmed in adult situations. To the argument that some porn stars have gone on to be actors/actresses as well is a moot point, just because they go on to act, doesn't mean that all of the porn stars who did not go into acting are suddenly actors. We can refer to the ones who go on to have film careers as being notable for both. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    Do you not find it funny that they are regarded as pornographic films, yet the people who star in them are not actors? Let's use your words, "go on to have film careers" but is a pornographic film career different to a film career? Does that make sense? They both end in film career. Serial killers are still killers, Art thieves are still thieves and pornographic actors are still actors. GuzzyG (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  10. Support retaining the current usage of the "pornographic" term. This practice has enjoyed a working consensus for many years, for good reason. This consensus parallels the usage for stunt performers, who are generally referred to as "stunt performers" pr "stunt actors" here, not simply as another undifferentiated group of actors. The parallel is quite close, because porn performers, like stunt performers, are notable for what they actually do on the screen, not what they pretend to do. There are also fields where we do differentiate by "genre", speaking broadly. When dealing with sports figures, for example, when disambiguation is required, the default is not to "(athlete)" or a similarly generic term, but to an identification of the particular sport.
Second, consistency calls for the use of the qualifier. A significant number of porn performers share names with or have similar names to notable or potentially notable performers -- a larger share than the proponents of this change have acknowledged. Many articles will require the qualifier. And not being consistent will convey the misleading impression that those performers with the qualifier are somehow distinct from those without it. And even when the nonporn performers sharing names are not (yet) notable, the possibility of confusion, and significant adverse impact, should not be ignored. A few years ago, there were requests from aspiring performers to delete or clearly differentiate the articles on the parallel porn performers, because the Wikipedia articles on their namesakes were creating problems for them. (In at least one reported case, imdb users were adding porn credits and related wikipedia factoids to a nonporn actor's IMDB entry.) 99% of porn names are assumed, and aren't used outside of that industry; the converse is certainly not the case. If this practice is adopted, it will nevertheless prove inappropriate for a significant proportion of those affected.
And the outcome would be unstable. While the "Letha Weapons" and "Seymore Butts" of the porn world are rather unlikely to share their names with mainstream performers, it's unusual for a more conventional porn stage name not to coincide with the name of a mainstream performer (not necessarily a yet-notable one). We will need to regularly change titles from (actor) to (pornographic actor) as notable mainstream performers emerge. It is one thing when an unqualified article title becomes a DAB page. It is quite another when a title one day points to a porn performer's article and later to an unrelated mainstream performer's. (But not doing so would require even more unnatural scheme of differentiation.) Far better to avoid (or at least limit) such problems at the outset. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
What a load of crap. We should make this change—and that's what it is, a change, not "a working consensus for many years"—because some people once did some bad things on IMDb and bad things might happen in the future if we don't make it?
Look at the articles in the subcategories of Category:Pornographic film actors. Do "[a] significant number of [them] share names with or have similar names to notable or potentially notable performers"? Of course they don't.
Do you stay up nights making this shit up? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Talk away here. I set this up as this issue does need to be settled. Individual move discussions seldom have more than half a dozen folks involved, which generally leads to one side crying foul over lack of community input. Anyone is welcome to publicise this far and wide so hopefully we get lots of folks over the next 30 days. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit confused as to the scope of this RfC. Are you talking about how we title articles or how we refer to them in the article? In my opinion, those aren't the same thing. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 16:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    Good point, thanks. I agree with Ahecht, and was personally commenting on only the article title and not within the body of the page. Please add "title" to the question, and I'll add it to my comment. Just to make sure non-Wikipedians reading this know, the people commenting on this question are not necessarily members of the topic project (at least I'm not) but were brought here by a notice at Rfc, which is a way for editors to ask for a wider audience to comment on issues. In my comments here and elsewhere I've only discussed proposed changes to article titles, and not to other guidelines or issues within this project. Randy Kryn 16:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Smartassed driveby—how can you tell if they're acting? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (dispite the invite,) I was going to stay out of this discussion, not being a project member...but Curly Turkey's point was TOO relevant to remain an unremarked upon "smartassed driveby," to wit: several editors have expressed an opinion that work in a "porn" doesn't require the skill that "mainstream" acting does. We have had an editor mention that porn once contained plot and dialogue (with the implication that it do longer does, dispite the mirriad hits that a cursory web-search for "porn parody, this year" gives...to say nothing of the many other works outside of "gonzo" pure porn). I'm sure we don't want to open the can of worms of deciding, as a community, into which category edge case films fall (be assured, there are more than you might think); at the very least it would kick off literally dozens, possibly hundreds, of debates that would test our neutral point of view to the breaking point. We have had a few editors mention the lack of talent in certain non-non-simulated sex actors, indeed I am reminded of the much bandied quote usualy apocryphally attributed to Marlon Brando, that he felt he lacked a certain faculty he often encountered in his co-stars to portray another human being, and instead only could behave as he, himself, would, given the situation portrayed. Whether or not the origin of the statement is accurate, and it does sound like others by him, it is often accepted as being a plausible statement by actors. Not only would we be forcing editors yet to come to decide whether or not a film had sufficient non-sexual content to consider some or all of its performers as "crossing over" into non-porn; not only would we be inviting editors to suggest that any film that had sexual or sexually evocative content by one of its performers had a "porn" scene in it, and that that actor, and that scene were "porn" not "acting"; we would be implying, quite unequivocally and unmistakably that the action portrayed in a pornographic work is genuine, and not, in any way simulated. While I am sure that there are many sex-tapes in circulation that are, nature photography style, straight up documentaries of human (et alis) interactions, as they occurred, naturally, it runs counter to the report of every pornographic performer yet cited in this debate to insist that the sexual acts that they depicted were naturaly occurring, without altering (or stoping and starting, or resetting to mark, etc.). We would be saying that "porn stars never fake it!" Besides the various obvious issues this would raise, we have, on Wikipedia, extensive articles about pornographic performers who have insisted, much latter, that their careers were less than voluntary despite how they appear on screen (Linda Lovelace, Traci Lords, just to name two) to say nothing about the many, many depictions of acts, that, if they are not "acting" are crimes (we would be alleging that many widely, openly distributed films were unlawful) ! While I, personally, am a bit insulted by lumping "having sex on tape" together with actions that could get you SAG eligibility or that you would take your family to see your child's class perform, to do otherwise would be to invite a host of problems that we surely wish to avoid: we must not suggest that performing in pornography is never "acting." 71.235.31.212 (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close discussion

Robert McClenon, I just saw this article move by The Anome, and it led me back to this discussion. That article was on my WP:Watchlist because of this discussion. And now seeing the discussion in its entirety, I wonder how you came to the conclusion that "This one is clear." Given the arguments from both sides on this matter, and seeing that both sides have made valid and/or strong arguments, I don't see anything clear about the WP:Consensus in this case. In fact, to me, it seems like this debate should have been closed as "No consensus." Flyer22 (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

JC's Girls

I have started an FAC for the article about JC's Girls, an organization that helps people seeking to overcome pornography addiction. The reviewers who have contributed to the FAC so far seem sharply divided. Any constructive contributions would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of all "female pornographic film actors" categories to "pornographic film actresses"

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 27#Category:Female pornographic film actors. Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Category for Discussion - FYI

For some reason, the Category Traci Lords CfD doesn't seem to be showing up in either the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Article_alerts or on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion pages. I don't know much about Traci Lords' career, so I really can't comment on the validity of the discussion so far. Guy1890 (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussions are added to the Article alerts based on which WikiProjects have their banners on the Talk page; Category talk:Traci Lords is empty, so the AAlertBot would never know to notify us.
I've added the discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.


Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Is she notable?

Is Eden Von Hell [30] a notable porn actress? Dwanyewest (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems like she'd be more likely to be evaluated under as a model rather than as a pornographic actress (since I can't seem to find that she's appeared in any adult movies), but I'm also not familiar at all with how one evaluates the notability of MMA fighters either on Wikipedia. [31] [32] [33] Guy1890 (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Apparently due to some pointy shenanigans at AfD recently, the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Awards are now up for deletion. Guy1890 (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I guess similarly to the above section, Maria Swan's recent AfD seems to have slipped through the cracks as well. Guy1890 (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Same thing with Sarah Kozer's recent AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography/Archive_7&oldid=1137368292"