Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography

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

Preferred disambiguator: "actor/actress" or "pornographic actor/actress"?[edit]

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)
  • 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)
  • "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)

Wikipedia Protests on Adult bios Entry denials[edit]

This is getting bad, net starting to get angry, doing this as anon as no-one seems to be willing to address the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.243.24.147 (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Aja (actress) settled, now what?[edit]

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)
  • 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)[edit]

The only ones left are:

Discussions[edit]

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:
What's taking so long?[edit]

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)

"S&M (song)"[edit]

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.[edit]

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...[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
It's a deceptively easy solution that creates more problems than solves. For example, how am I supposed to "prove" an award is notable if there has never been a Wikipedia article created for that award? The assumption that no article = non-notable is not supported by the Notability guidelines, or any guideline. How are we supposed to debate the notability of a non-existent article? There is no mechanism unlike the AfD process with formal procedures and rulings. It would put a huge amount of power in the hands of deletionists and put inclusionists at a severe disadvantage and is fundamentally unfair. What if an award does have an article but someone seeks to AfD that article as part of a campaign to remove those award listings in other articles. A single AfD could take out the award from 100s of articles. AfD is not set up to deal with that kind of deletion activity. It breaks the principals of the content policies. -- GreenC 00:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Have you read the full description, because the answer is there. We don't prove an award is notable. If it is notable, it is included. If it is not notable, it requires a secondary source and a physical award ceremony. --Ronz (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
GC, I think Rebecca's goal here is just to come up with a stable list of awards that we can routinely cite for each performer as they apply. The same will go for nominations, but the performer's Notability will have already been established based on other factors. As these other awards meet our criteria or get better press, we can re-evaluate them and their Notability, write articles if applicable, and then add those awards as well. I really don't think this proposal will lessen the amount of new articles about Porn performers than we do now. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:01, 14 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)
    These are some of the various discussions that have taken place in the past ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]). These awards may not be as notable as the major awards, but I disagree with their classification as quintessentially non-notable since 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 Rebecca1990 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)
    Much appreciated. There's no consensus in any of those discussions that I can see, and they're rather short on policy-based arguments so unlikely to gain the wide consensus required.
    Alternatively, we can just follow BLP and require reliable, independent, secondary sources demonstrating due weight for each award and award nomination. Otherwise it doesn't deserve mention. This would solve Green Cardamom's concerns as well. Of course, we'd be hard pressed to find such sources for the majority of the entries in the current articles. So instead we're here trying to find something more inclusive. --Ronz (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a very long discussion over at WP:Film and a new one over at WP:VPP that deal with the same question: "Should non-notable awards be added to list of award articles". To repeat myself and others that I agree with: What are notable awards? Awards that have or should have (but currently don't have) a Wikipedia article (and thus satisfying notability guidelines). Why should we limit them? Because if a local elementary school gives an award to actor Philip Seymour Hoffman and it was covered by some local newspaper, should an article such as List of awards and nominations received by Philip Seymour Hoffman add that award to the list. The side not wanting to add non-notable awards cited WP:CSC#1 ("Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment.") as adding non-notable awards to such a list serves only those non-notable organizations which as a consequence become notable not because of what they do, but because they have Wikipedia mentions. Since this not only a WP:Porn or WP:Film question, it would be better if we kept the discussion in the same place (Either where its already very long in WP:Film, or globally WP:VPP). --Gonnym (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Gonnym, while its great that there are other conversations taking place elsewhere, this one is happening because Porn is NOT a mainstream subject and does not typically have the coverage that even a elementary school award may receive. Furthermore, WP:NOTABLE clearly states that it does NOT apply to article content. Put simply, the more popular a performer is, the more things (awards, etc.) they will be associated with. Since we don't know who will be the next Marilyn Chambers, Jenna Jameson, or Sasha Grey, there should not be so much resistance to adding sourced content for something as banal as a "win" for an award. Right now we are trying to establish what's worthy or not for THIS project. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Porn awards should be required to pass the guidelines as other topics do. Regarding WP:NOTABLE, to copy Alsee's comment (which I believe sums this up good) from WP:FILM: "WP:NLISTITEM is quite clear that The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content, but then it adds (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). WP:LISTN says essentially the same thing. If a list does not have a clear List Selection Criteria then the relevant Common Selection Criteria are either (1) Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article or (3) Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. I have seen cases of companies arranging to give themselves fake awards. That makes lists of merely "verifiable awards" utterly useless to our readers. If a list does not have consensus for clearly defined inclusion criteria, then the general issues of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:PROMOTIONAL overwhelmingly weigh in favor of awards-lists being notable-only." Also, regarding famous porn star and awards, that argument is meaningless, as this is a WP:NOTINHERITED argument. You are trying to argue that since the performer is popular and gets the awards, then the awards should be listed. But the awards aren't notable and have nothing to do with who they gave an award to. Lastly, just to add my vote to yet another discussion regarding this - Agree to limit awards to only notable awards. --Gonnym (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Gonnym, fair enough, but Porn performer articles are not on equal ground with other similar ones otherwise WP:PORNBIO wouldn't exist. As for selection criteria, that's the purpose of this discussion, so thank you for participating. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree - pure spam and totally irrelevant. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Despite the recent plethora of discussions on these basic topics, I've not changed my mind on the idea that if an award or award nomination is not from a notable (blue-linked) organization, then it shouldn't be included in a Wikipedia article covered by this Project here. The problem, at this late date, is that a decision like that can be (and likely, unfortunately will be) challenged by larger WikiProjects and/or portions of the Wiki-bureaucracy.
That WikiProject Film discussion appears to likely be going nowhere, and who knows where the more recent VPP discussion will go, if anywhere.
I've never personally bought into the idea that all information in an individual's Wikipedia article needs to be notable on its own, that lists of awards & award nominations in adult performer Wikipedia articles appear to give "undue weight" to that information, and that all citations used for awards or award nominations can't be from the awarding organization itself. Just about any piece of information included in just about any Wikipedia article could be considered "promotional". Heck, using a New York Times citation for something could be perceived as trying to drum up readership for that specific type of media. Those kind of discussions are bottomless pits to nowhere IMHO.
"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?"..."What if an award does have an article but someone seeks to AfD that article as part of a campaign to remove those award listings in other articles." Welcome to the unfortunate world of the Wikipedia Pornography Project my friend...enjoy the bad faith and/or POV-pushing (by some - like right here: "Alternatively, we can just follow BLP and require reliable, independent, secondary sources demonstrating due weight for each award and award nomination. Otherwise it doesn't deserve mention.") in advance...  ;) Guy1890 (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on notability of awards[edit]

Since the discussion has stalled, and I'm confused by the opposition to the proposal:

Is anyone against including notable awards, where WP:N has been met? Please note that this is a standard inclusion criteria for lists, and we're discussing lists of awards. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone disputing the exclusion of the specific awards listed?[edit]

As another attempt to get some consensus out of this discussion, is anyone arguing for the inclusion of any of the specific awards listed above? --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)