Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Pornography and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
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)
- 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)
- Previous RMs, which attract a wide spectrum of editors have come down on Category:American female pornographic film actors etc. being followed in the dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- I say that ... Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pornographic entertainers) may need to be created to address this concern after a few recently-started move requests that related to this concern are completed. Personally, I think that the word "pornographic ..." needs to be used as a disambiguator unless the actor/actress (or director, or whoever) is or eventually became more notable for non-pornographic works or ventures. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 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)
- Scalhotrod I also started with comment that: "I did a search on ("Aletta Ocean" OR "Kayden Kross" OR "Tera Patrick" OR "Bree Olson" OR "Katie Morgan" OR "Jenna Jameson" OR "Asia Carrera" OR "Tori Black" OR OR "Audrey Bitoni" OR "Jayden Jaymes" OR "Gianna Michaels" OR "Jenna Haze") AND actress AND -Wikipedia . From this I think that the emphasis seems to be on porn and/but that is without taking a close look at results." There are many more specialist media commentary sites that make some reference to porn. But the Britannica content, similar to many of the related videos, was an eye opener. GregKaye 00:36, 27 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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:
- Cytherea (pornographic actress) (pending speedy deletion of Cytherea (actress) before move)
- Hillary Scott (pornographic actress) (WP:Move protected)
- Wendy Williams (pornographic actress) (title will remain the same because Wendy Williams (actress) is already taken by a mainstream actress)
- Priscila Sol (pornographic actress) (title will remain the same because Priscila Sol (actress) is already taken by a mainstream actress)
- Ben Andrews (pornographic actor) (title will remain the same because Ben Andrews (actor) is already taken by a mainstream actor)
- Rodney Moore (pornographic actor) (Move protected. I suggest moving it to Rodney Moore (director) instead of (actor) because he has done more films as a director than he has as a performer.)
- Kevin James (pornographic actor) (title will remain the same because Kevin James (actor) is already taken by a mainstream actor)
- Erik Rhodes (pornographic actor) (title will remain the same because Erik Rhodes (actor) is already taken by a mainstream actor)
Kent Larson (pornographic actor)(pending speedy deletion of Kent Larson (actor) before move)Mandingo (pornographic actor)(move protected)Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
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) - Requested move to Rodney Moore (director)
Talk:Mandingo (pornographic actor) - Requested move to Mandingo (actor)Talk:April O'Neil (actress) - Requested move back to April O'Neil (pornographic actress).Rebecca1990 (talk) 12:46, 29 April 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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
- RogReviews Fan Faves Award
- RogReviews Critic’s Choice Award
- CAVR Award
- XCritic Award
- RISE Award
- Fame Registry Award
- Juliland Award
- POPPORN/TLA RAW Award
- Spank Bank Award
- Captain Jack Off Award
- Orgazmik Award
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- There are some of the various discussions that have taken place in the past ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]). I disagree with the classification of these awards as non-notable as 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 Rebecca19990 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)
- 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)