Talk:Alt porn: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Here's a good example, follow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pornographic_movie_studios and you will see a list of porn studios. If you follow a link, there is a description or article, along with an external link. It's like a backdoor links repository. So how about starting a whole new article on internet alt-porn? I would be happy to pick this up. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:63.173.114.136|63.173.114.136]] ([[User talk:63.173.114.136|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/63.173.114.136|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- [Template:Unsigned] --> |
Here's a good example, follow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pornographic_movie_studios and you will see a list of porn studios. If you follow a link, there is a description or article, along with an external link. It's like a backdoor links repository. So how about starting a whole new article on internet alt-porn? I would be happy to pick this up. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:63.173.114.136|63.173.114.136]] ([[User talk:63.173.114.136|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/63.173.114.136|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- [Template:Unsigned] --> |
||
:Well, categorisation is useful, and they don't link to external links, merely to other Wikipedia articles. Most articles have external links, and in articles about companies their website is a pretty relevent one. Most of these articles do contain at least some information aside from the link in any case. If you think the articles are unencylopedic, or the subjects not notable, or they are just advertising, tag them for cleanup or list them for AfD rather than creating more articles that have the same problems. If you want to create articles on ''notable'' altporn studios, and a category for it (if there are enough articles to justify it), that is fine, but a page merely listing links is not. [[User:NicM|NicM]] 16:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC). |
:Well, categorisation is useful, and they don't link to external links, merely to other Wikipedia articles. Most articles have external links, and in articles about companies their website is a pretty relevent one. Most of these articles do contain at least some information aside from the link in any case. If you think the articles are unencylopedic, or the subjects not notable, or they are just advertising, tag them for cleanup or list them for AfD rather than creating more articles that have the same problems. If you want to create articles on ''notable'' altporn studios, and a category for it (if there are enough articles to justify it), that is fine, but a page merely listing links is not. [[User:NicM|NicM]] 16:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC). |
||
Fair enough, but I think I will categorize web sites, not studios. |
Revision as of 09:23, 20 April 2006
Does anyone have any insight into the effects of pornography on culture, and what alternaporn may point towards? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.205.96.61 (talk • contribs) .
- Do you mean the effects of culture on pornography? If so, I think altporn is a reaction to all the blonde-haired, high heel-wearing, fake-boobed women that filled much of films, pornographic and not, through the 1980's. It was kind of like how mainstream rock music went from hair bands to grunge. People just got sick of the fakeness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.173.114.136 (talk • contribs) .
I think this page should be renamed "Altporn" rather than "Alternaporn". A search for "alternaporn" on yahoo revealed 760 hits. "Altporn" brought 15,000 hits. The page "Alternaporn" should redirect to "Altporn". Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.99.170.56 (talk • contribs) .
I agree with the preceding statement. I also think a separate page should be started listing Alt-Porn websites in alphabetical order. I will be starting this ASAP unless there are any objections? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.173.114.136 (talk • contribs) .
- WP:NOT a links repository. NicM 09:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC).
If that is true, then why are there so many of them here? There's a link repository for mainstream porn studios with their own personal web sites. The truth is that alot of people use this for marketing themselves and their companies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.173.114.137 (talk • contribs) .
- A lot of people may try to do so, but they are not supposed to. If you see a mainstream Wikipedia page being used as a links repository then either a) fix it or b) list it {{prod}} or for AfD. NicM 14:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC).
- I can't find a links repository for mainstream porn studios anyway. List of pornographic movie studios links only to Wikipedia articles, not to personal web sites. Which page were you thinking of? NicM 14:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC).
Here's a good example, follow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pornographic_movie_studios and you will see a list of porn studios. If you follow a link, there is a description or article, along with an external link. It's like a backdoor links repository. So how about starting a whole new article on internet alt-porn? I would be happy to pick this up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.173.114.136 (talk • contribs) .
- Well, categorisation is useful, and they don't link to external links, merely to other Wikipedia articles. Most articles have external links, and in articles about companies their website is a pretty relevent one. Most of these articles do contain at least some information aside from the link in any case. If you think the articles are unencylopedic, or the subjects not notable, or they are just advertising, tag them for cleanup or list them for AfD rather than creating more articles that have the same problems. If you want to create articles on notable altporn studios, and a category for it (if there are enough articles to justify it), that is fine, but a page merely listing links is not. NicM 16:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC).
Fair enough, but I think I will categorize web sites, not studios.