Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Gkleinman (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 59: Line 59:
#[http://www.gamelink.com Gamelink.com], eg. [http://www.gamelink.com/display_star.jhtml?id=24478#]
#[http://www.gamelink.com Gamelink.com], eg. [http://www.gamelink.com/display_star.jhtml?id=24478#]
[[User:Epbr123|Epbr123]] ([[User talk:Epbr123|talk]]) 13:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
[[User:Epbr123|Epbr123]] ([[User talk:Epbr123|talk]]) 13:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

== For Consideration XCritic Page ==
Wanted to submit to the WP Pornography Team that we believe XCritic has finally broken through the threshold of WPNotable. Our current top 10 list of women porn directors has been picked up and covered by [http://www.avn.com/performer/articles/32946.html AVN] and [http://www.xbiz.com/news/100743 XBiz]. This on top of our 9K reviews, porn star blogs and steady stream of news. Because of conflict of interest, of course we can not create the page, nor would we. So we submit to the Project our inclusion for your consideration. Thanks. [[User:Gkleinman|Gkleinman]] ([[User talk:Gkleinman|talk]])

Revision as of 02:50, 22 October 2008

"Roughies" revisited, and "Nudie-cuties"

If anyone is interested in writing on the historical American porn genres of "Nudie-cuties" and "Roughies" (I'm pretty sure Russ Meyer worked in both genres early in his career), I've just come across this, perhaps, useful quote in my Japanese studies. "Coincidentally, rise of the eroductions occurred almost parallel with that of the American "nudie-cuties" (i.e., harmless naturist and peekaboo flicks), the more innocent forerunners of the "roughies". Roughies lived up to their nickname by sexploiting not only teasy nudity but - almost without exception - sadism and rape, usually of women. Main difference between Japanese and American genres was the latter's filmmakers could eventually reveal unlimited amounts of pubic hair/genitalia..." {{cite journal |last=Fentone|first=Steve|year=1998|title=A Rip of the Flesh: The Japanese 'Pink Film' Cycle|journal=She|volume=2|issue=11|pages=p.5}}

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Pornography

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew William Shatner had anything to do with pornography ;-) --Rosenzweig (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates II

The DVD for Pirates II just came out and the WP page for it is pretty light Pirates_II:_Stagnetti's_Revenge might be a good candidate for an overhaul. Gkleinman (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Abbywinters.com

Until a few minutes ago, the article on the porn website Abbywinters.com was in Category:Photographers. I've since fixed that; however, while the article was purporting to be about a photographer, it underwent a set of suspicious-looking edits that drew my attention: see its recent editing history. In brief, after my restoration of much deleted material (or my unthinking reintroduction of rightly deleted junk), much of the article is now a description of the website, "sourced" to the website itself (i.e. from direct observation, or "OR" if you will), and much of the rest is about some criticism of it in somebody's blog. The whole affair looks eminently AfD-worthy to me, but I know nothing about the relative noteworthiness of porn websites. Neither that article nor this project page is not on my watchlist; it's all yours. -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Award in major magazine

Is winning Penthouse pet of the month (or similar e.g. Playboy Playmate of the month) generally considered an award in a major magazine? My gut feeling is it isn't (pet of the year, yeah sure) but would appreciate feedback from those more familiar with pornography related issues. The reason I ask is because it came up in the Ginger Jolie where some people assert she's notable for being pet of the month, but so far I'm not seeing evidence of notability from coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back, a couple years at least, when User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. and others were hashing out the criteria for WP:PORNBIO, before it got folded into WP:PEOPLE, the inclusion criteria specifically stated that Playmate and Pet of the Month were both awards from major magazines. If I'm not mistaken, Hustler Honey was included in the earlier versions of the criteria. There was even some discussion about why only American magazines were being used as examples. I can't find that version of the criteria now because I think, if I'm looking at this correctly, that page was deleted before the redirect to WP:PEOPLE was put in. And I seem to recall that when PORNBIO got folded into PEOPLE, the specific awards/magazines got edited out when the criteria was copied over to PEOPLE. As for why, I have no idea. I wasn't able to find any discussion about leaving them out during the transition.
As for my own opinion, Playmate and Pet are rather different awards. Playmate is always (going from memory, I've had a subscription and have collected back issues for years) bestowed on an unknown model that the magazine finds themselves (either when photographers find them or when women send in their photos) or on models who may have just done some local modeling. Playmates sometimes go on to do some acting, bikini modeling and such, or for the most part go to school to become nurses, photographers, real estate agents, etc. and hardly ever go on to do hardcore pornography. I can think of only two that have done this. Teri Weigel being one and the second name escapes me right now. So for the most part, being a Playmate isn't just a modeling gig. Pet on the other hand is aimed more at women who want to be or already are in the pornography business. The number of women who go into hardcore porn after being Pet is far greater. For them it seems to be more of a jumping off point to get into the porn business. And seems to be more like just another modeling gig. For instance, Silvia Saint had already won an AVN Award (1997) before she was Pet of the Month (1998).
And finally, being a Playmate has a scientific impact. At least three studies [1], [2], [3] have been done using the measurements of Playmates for their data sets.
If you'd like to go over some of the past Playmate AFDs, I've started putting together a collection here. Dismas|(talk) 07:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

I think we need to establish which sources are reliable for porn star articles. I've listed some of the most commonly used sources below, so if we can gain consensus on whether each one is reliable, maybe we can write a guideline at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography page.

  1. Interviews at lukeisback.com
  2. Cited material at lukeisback.com, eg. [4] (currently used in the Jenna Jameson FA)
  3. AVN.com
  4. AInews.com
  5. XBiz.com
  6. Interviews at Rogreviews.com, eg. [5]
  7. Biographical info at iafd.com, eg. [6]
  8. Adultdvdempire.com
  9. Adultfyi.com, eg. [7]
  10. XFanz.com, eg. [8]
  11. Excaliburfilms.com, eg. [9]
  12. Eros-ny.com
  13. Pornvalleynews.com
  14. Gamelink.com, eg. [10]

Epbr123 (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Consideration XCritic Page

Wanted to submit to the WP Pornography Team that we believe XCritic has finally broken through the threshold of WPNotable. Our current top 10 list of women porn directors has been picked up and covered by AVN and XBiz. This on top of our 9K reviews, porn star blogs and steady stream of news. Because of conflict of interest, of course we can not create the page, nor would we. So we submit to the Project our inclusion for your consideration. Thanks. Gkleinman (talk)