Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Hanswar32 (talk | contribs)
1,792 edits
Line 119: Line 119:
*: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]]. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 17:07, 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]]. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 17:07, 13 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. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 18:36, 13 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. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 18:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
* '''Disagree''' per [[User:Green Cardamom|Green Cardamom]]'s reasoning and previous discussions cited. [[User:Hanswar32|Hanswar32]] ([[User talk:Hanswar32|talk]]) 22:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:37, 13 May 2015

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

More discussions taking place:
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"S&M (song)"

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

Calvin999, And...? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Disagree per Green Cardamom's reasoning and previous discussions cited. Hanswar32 (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography&oldid=662220094"