Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography

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

Wiki Loves Pride[edit]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Proposed renaming of all "female pornographic film actors" categories to "pornographic film actresses"[edit]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 27#Category:Female pornographic film actors. Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Category for Discussion - FYI[edit]

For some reason, the Category Traci Lords CfD doesn't seem to be showing up in either the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Article_alerts or on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion pages. I don't know much about Traci Lords' career, so I really can't comment on the validity of the discussion so far. Guy1890 (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussions are added to the Article alerts based on which WikiProjects have their banners on the Talk page; Category talk:Traci Lords is empty, so the AAlertBot would never know to notify us.
I've added the discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


Apparently due to some pointy shenanigans at AfD recently, the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Awards are now up for deletion. Guy1890 (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I guess similarly to the above section, Maria Swan's recent AfD seems to have slipped through the cracks as well. Guy1890 (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Same thing with Sarah Kozer's recent AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


When a few months ago i adeed a new section in a pornographic actor's article someone deleted it saying it's not "encyclopedic". It was a section about the performer's penis size and technique in porn scenes. Why can't we add such content in pornographic actors' articles? For example manu musicians have "Artistry" section in their articles which is about their voice, their songs' style and critical comments to their appearance. Pornographic actors are only known for their penis, vagina, boobs, ass or whatever. Why can't we write anything about the only talent thet are famous for? --Croxx036 (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I would really need to see the specific section and article to determine what was meant by "not encylopedic" to form a full opinion. However, I think it possibly may be relevant in some instances in this particular field, but it really depends how much independent secondary coverage there is. You can't just add some bloke's cock size to his article for the hell of it, but if there are reviews of films and porn bios which discuss this particular feature, then it would possibly be germane to such an article. Betty Logan (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
For example Mandingo is known for the very big size of his penis. A few months ago in his article there was something like this; "Mandingo is known for the large size of his penis. According to some sources it is considered as one of the largest male genitalias in the porn industry." Why this is not encyclopedic? Even New York Post wrote about his penis size commenting "that would make even Anthony Weiner blush" [1]. This kind of comments from reliable sources about the performers can be use in the articles. --Croxx036 (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
BLPs require "high-quality" reliable sources. Crap you find online generally doesn't qualify. "" is not an acceptable source for a BLP. "" is not an acceptable source for a BLP. The New York Post may be an acceptable source, but you can't cite it for things it doesn't say. When you can't find genuinely reliable sourcing for whatever yoiu want to insert into an article, it's not appropriate behavior for you to cast aspersions on editors enforcing BLP standards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Mainstream media as a rule doesn't usually cover porn, so when it does I think it is an opportunity to extend Wikipedia's coverage of the porn industry with legitimately sourced information. If the NY Post consider Mandango's 12-inch schlong relevant then I don't see a legitimate reason to exclude it from the article, in this particular instance. Betty Logan (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Nobody excluded it. Nobody put it in. Instead, the Post article was cited for claims it didn't make. I fixed that, and Croxx is whining about things that didn't happen rather than trying to edit reasonably. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Listen, can you just stop follow me? Keep your opinion to yourself, it's so clear that you're against porn articles. --Croxx036 (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear on this, I wasn't impying anything about the nature of your edits, or taking Croxx's side. It's the same with all content disputes: we need to see the specific claim and the source it is attributed to before determining whether something should be included or not. I was basically just pointing out that in principle I am not opposed to discussing someone's penis size in an article if it can be reliably sourced and context relevant. Betty Logan (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)