This template is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This template is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 17:39, April 15, 2015 (JST, Heisei 27) (Refresh)
Will the editor please stop linking the title to Pornography in Japan. This template is not the main template for Pornography in Japan. It is the template for Japanese Erotic Cinema. Pornography has a history far older than cinema. It includes many more genres than just cinema. Erotic cinema is not necessarily pornographic-- there are many pink film subjects on the template which may not fit under that description. This template is already present at the Pornography in Japan article, which is appropriate, but redirecting its title to that article is not appropriate. The proper article for this to link to would be Japanese Erotic Cinema, and since that is red-linked for now, we should leave it unlinked in the Title. Dekkappai (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
And I'd just like to point out that it'd be a rather interesting circumstance if the top text is linked at an article which also appears in the Related Articles section below. Tabercil (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
You are semi-retired? Then stop reverting constructive edits. Can you not see that every page with the template will now link to the article on which the template is based? I am not an expert, but Pornography is defined as Erotic cinema, I don't know why you think they are entirely different things. Stop being so pedantic. Look up the word because you must not know what it means. I cannot conceive why you would object to an edit which will eventually improve the quality of the entire scope of the subject. Cosprings (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Your reasoning that mis-linking somehow opens up the articles to a wider audience is incorrect, and if it were true it would still be irrelevant. The template is on the Pornography in Japan article. Anyone wanting to see any examples of articles related to Japanese erotic cinema can see them right there in the template. Pornography in Japan is on the template under "Related articles", so any user who wants to jump to that article from any of the others on the template can do so easily.
You will have to show me the definition of Pornography which says it is "Erotic cinema", because I do not believe any competent source would ever make this mistake.
Who ever said the two are entirely different? I've never said any such thing. They are related, as I stated above. That's why Pornography in Japan is linked on the template under "Related articles". That's why the template is at Pornography in Japan. There have been endless discussions and laws set at defining the difference between the erotic and the pornographic. The definition is probably subjective, and not something we should decide. But one thing is certain: They are not entirely the same thing. It is you who are saying they are entirely the same, both in this dubious definition you've just given, and in your edit-warring the title into a link to Pornography in Japan. I object to this edit because it does not improve the quality or scope of the project, but that it does just the opposite. So, again, please stop doing it. Dekkappai (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Pornography is a subset of erotic cinema, but erotic cinema is not a subset of pornography. Tabercil (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Kenny, Mariko Morikawa, Shinobu Hosokawa, Kaoru Sakurako, Miki Sawaguchi and dozens of other actresses have appeared at the site. You can see most of them there, as their pages are saved in the archives. Therefore it is easily verifiable. I realize this "truth" isn't good enough for a Wiki rule-thumper-- somebody has to say that the site hosted these actresses, actually seeing them hosted at the site doesn't count. But just hold on for a couple days and we can remove the site from the template after the article is deleted. Wikipedia can suffer "truth" at the expense of "Wiki-editor-based verifiability" for that long, can't it? Why be disruptive about this? Dekkappai (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Would more knowledgeable editors consider adding some order the list of actress names? How about sorting them by active and retired performers or by year of debut?--Kencaesi (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I've sorted the actresses and directors into separate adult video and pink film groups.Dongord (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)