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)

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)

FYI[edit]

I just came across this discussion here entitled "Listing of porn award nominations", which is apparently about whether or not Wikipedia articles should have an "exhaustive listing of porn awards nominations" in BLPs. Guy1890 (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

We should probably be keeping track of these various discussions especially if they are going to affect how we manage article content. Since no one seems to accept or trust Project member opinions, maybe they'll heed what non-members have to say. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Dana Vespoli[edit]

Hey,

I uploades a couple of photos of Dana Vespoli from Luke Ford. But one of them was tagged for deletion. Can someone take a look at it? What's missing? the images are on Commons: Dana Vespoli Bmurso (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Photo uploads are not my expertise at all, but apparently only certain photos taken in the past by Luke Ford are totally OK for upload to Wikipedia. The ones that are still left at Wikimedia Commons for her are both apparently from 2005, and I guess one of the ones that you tried to upload was from 2014? Guy1890 (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles Deletion[edit]

I don't know much about who's interested in deleting pornstars related articles, but it looks like many of them didn't needed to be deleted. Does anyone knows how to propose changes on the Notability of Pornographic actors and models? I believe that an important topic is missing: number of movie appearances, an actress that appears in more than 100 movies during 5 years for example, shouldn't be elegible for an article? Bmurso (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • The number of films criterion was removed from PORNBIO years ago. The nature of porn films makes a high number fairly common. The current guideline relies on acknowledgement by reliable (or industry) sources of the actor's contributions to porn. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As of right now, you have to show that an adult film performer has begun "a trend in pornography" or "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature", which is not always that easy to do. I highly doubt that relaxing the PORNBIO inclusion standard would go over well with enough Wikipedia users/administrators these days. Some adult film performers are also directors, so they can also be evaluated under the WP:FILMMAKER standard as well. Guy1890 (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The standards for inclusion of pornography/pornographic actors is far, far too lenient. You guys are massively overrepresented on the encyclopedia. It's inexcusable. --DawnDusk (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"overrepresented" versus what? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
"You guys"? Who do you think we are, a bunch of porn stars? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Why list every company a performer has worked for?[edit]

I've come across several porn biography articles which list every single production company the performer has ever worked for. Here's some examples:

  • Lisa Ann (Career section, second paragraph)
  • Tasha Reign (Career section, Adult industry subsection, first paragraph)
  • Katie Morgan (Career section, last sentence of the first paragraph)
  • Ashley Long (Career section, first paragraph)
  • Taylor Wane (Career section, third paragraph)
  • Vanessa Blue (Career section, third paragraph)

WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Companies a performer has worked for should only be mentioned in their articles if they are a significant part of their careers (e.g. performing/directing contracts, porn debut, directorial debut, etc.) Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm guilty of adding content like this to several articles. I'd like to offer that for the most part I add companies that have articles on WP versus just listing everything from IAFD, AFD, etc. As for the content itself, the studio Wikilinks are links to a wealth of information regarding the industry, other performers, and other subjects. From a practical standpoint, I've added sentences containing this kind of content to paragraphs where I wanted to add a 3rd sentence. Two sentence paragraphs just seem flimsy to me. If group consensus finds fault with this and wants to remove it, I'm indifferent and will cease the practice. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You're not the only one who's added these. You haven't made any contributions to Lily Carter and that article also contains a random listing of companies she has worked for (career section, third sentence). I'm not sure where this trend first started, but I've been seeing it in articles for several years now, even since before I started editing on Wikipedia. WP:Too much detail states "Readers might lose interest when a portion of an article goes into too much detail on one specific aspect. Other times, readers might question how so much detail on something is important to the topic", which is exactly what I'm thinking when I come across these listings. We shouldn't list every company a performer has worked for for the same reason we don't list every film a performer has appeared in. Rebecca1990 (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't be listing every company, but a few can't hurt (especially some of the bigger ones like Vivid) that are not in the context that you referred to initially. But, like I said, I won't object to removal and/or trimming. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Listing every company a performer has worked for is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. Shortening the listings to only a few random companies would still be a problem because that gives WP:UNDUE weight to those companies. Companies should only be mentioned in a performers article if they are significant in their careers. I'll give you some examples of when it's ok to mention porn companies in a performer's biography:
Now, here's what I don't think is ok:
  • Yep, I think that's one of mine. Not sure why I added that, but in hindsight, I'd agree with your assessment. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion alert: "The removal of non notable awards on film articles"[edit]

There is a discussion at WT:WikiProject Film that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject: The removal of non notable awards on film articles.

The discussion has spread to WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard as well (see here), although I think that request is likely to be declined. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget this one, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Listing_of_porn_award_nominations. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • What a mess. I agree that the DR request above seems too soon and/or like at least a mild case of forum shopping. I do think at this late date that we probably need to start to wrap our minds around the concept that awards (or award nominations) from entities that don't have their own Wikipedia articles aren't going to be allowed to be mentioned on performer articles for very much longer (either officially or unofficially through Wikipedia policy). While I've never personally bought into the idea that all information in an individual's Wikipedia article needs to be notable on its own (we're supposed to be building an online encyclopedia, not tearing one apart) or that lists of awards & award nominations in adult performer's Wikipedia articles appear to give "undue weight" to that information, I've noted for quite some time that there is a distinct tendency for at least some Wikipedia editors and/or administrators that want those kind of adult performer articles to be as short as possible. I've also never bought into the idea that all citations used for awards or award nominations can't be from the awarding organization itself. While there seems to frequently be secondary sources available for some awards or award nominations, that's not always the case, and I'm still fine with that.
It may even be time for us to consider establishing some local guidelines along these lines...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. I seriously doubt that the Film Project is going to ever be able to come up with a laundry list of what organization's awards or award nominations should or should not be included in their Wikipedia articles. Guy1890 (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
There's now an RfC ("Do list items need their own WP article in order to be sourced in list articles?") over at WikiProject Film on these issues. Guy1890 (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)