Talk:List of pornographic subgenres

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Reliable sources[edit]

if the genre doesnt have an article (or a section in an article on the term/practice) it requires a reliable source for inclusion. Reliable sources are very important for inclusion. Otherwise it could just be a list made by someone who watches a lot of porn and we cannot verify the truth or otherwise of the genres working thus. Rather than getting angry see this as an opportunity to develop articles or add reliable sources about other porn genres not currently included. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but you've basically eviscerated the article, most of which had related articles. Remember that "verification" comes into play only for information that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Many of the sub-genres you removed have millions of Google hits, which to me says that they're not something that can be readily challenged. We don't need reliable sources to say that the sky is commonly described as blue. Also, some of your reasons for removal seem to be of the JDLI variety. The one that really stuck out was "I dont think rape and snuff are fetishes at all" (see Rape fetish and Snuff film). "I don't think" is inherently OR and is not a sufficient reason for removal.
Looking at the article before your edits, there were only a handful of red links, and looking down the list of what you removed, I see very little that isn't commonly known about and easily verified as a common genre. I'd like to suggest that we restore the content and go through it with the approach you actually state, which is "remove it if it doesn't have an article". Let the notability and verifiability of those that do have articles come into play on those articles themselves.
On a final note, please consider making multiple edits all at once. The nearly two hundred edits you made could and should have been combined into one or two edits per day. It's not like this is a heavy-traffic article that needed item-by-item or section-by-section edits just to avoid edit conflicts. I note on your user page that you say your connection isn't very reliable. In that case, please consider saving the document locally and then copying it back to Wikipedia later on. RobinHood70 talk 00:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of any feedback against the idea, and implied support from at least one edit summary, I restored the original list. After that, I removed those that were red links, and any unlinked sub-genres that appeared not to be notable. Many of these are judgement calls, and I won't take it at all amiss if someone thinks something should be restored or that I didn't remove enough. (Oh, and I didn't re-add Furry as a genre, as had been done in a recent edit, simply because that seems to be covered by the Yiff/Yiffy entry.)
That said, some of the existing links and subject matter could probably use some review and perhaps debate. For example, is there porn geared more towards middle-aged and mature people? You bet. It's not hard to find that as a category on sites like, for instance. But linking it to the article for Middle age, well...that seems a whole lot more questionable.
In short, let's have a discussion before we go mass-deleting genres that are easily confirmed as notable, but there probably could be some further refining of this list if people see a need. RobinHood70 talk 06:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant links[edit]

A lot of the links go to pages of absolutely no relevance, and a lot of them are useless. For example, the whole Fetish section is basically the List of paraphilias page, except the links don't actually lead to the articles about such fetishes but useless articles. The line about "crying pornography" links to the Crying page, the "milking" one to a page about cow milking, and so on for quite a few of those...

The "rule 34" meme dictates that if it exists, there's porn about it. I think that should be taken in account rather than re-listing all fetishes here, which is useless because it's a repeat of the list of paraphilias. What I believe should be here is a list of only the most prolific fetishes in porn, and an explicit mention that the list isn't exhaustive. - 7dare (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

This "article" is a mess of unsourced and unsourcable original research. People make things up and add them to the list. There are things that have had outstanding citation requests for nine and a half years—nearly a decade!

If nobody starts adding sources and weeding out the junk, I will start removing whatever is unsourced and seems implausible to me. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)