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, 9|
|Wikipedia is not censored.|
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding objectionable content and options to not see an image.
|WikiProject Pornography||(Rated NA-class)|
|Dailyof Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography|
Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Shock Site Page
Hello! I have been revising the Shock Site page as previously there was very little information about it. I integrated the old information into the sections I added about History, Legality, Morality and Media when I first revised the page. Would anyone be willing/able to look at the site and make recommendations of any more changes to make? Additionally, another user asked to add back the original information at the end under "Examples", which means the information is now duplicated. I am considering removing it from the other sections, but that means the Media section will likely have to be removed as there will be little information and leaving BestGore out of the History section feels like missing part of the story (so to speak). Do you have any advice on what I should do? -Bcstanley1 (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Renaming discussion for "List of male performers in gay porn films" article
I have suggested that the article List of male performers in gay porn films be changed to List of male performers in gay pornographic films. Porn is slang and Wikipedia generally uses the term "pornography" for categories and articles, as it does with the main gay pornography article. Adding notice here to alert editors. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
On WP:RS/N#pornhub.com/insights an editor suggested to propose the Pornhub Insights for the #Industry/trade sources on your project page.
Unrelated, doing this I saw that you list RogReviews.com under self-published sources, and therefore unsuited for BLPs. Based on Roger T. Pipe he is a notable film critic, and IMO referencing his site for this purpose (film critic) does not automatically violate WP:BLP. –188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Please review WP:SELFPUB. Rog is a notable film critic, but his site can only be used to reference his opinions and criticism of movies; not to establish facts about other people. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- For your archives, this WT:WHITELIST issue is now archived. –184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
AfC draft submitted of interest to this project
WP:PORNBIO under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
The deprecated WP:PORNBIO SNG is under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Documenting history of WP:PORNBIO deprecation in this policy. Editors have disputed porn performers being evaluated per WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)