Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Porn stars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Shortcut:
Talk:WP:P*
Archive

Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Links

I am thinking that the AFDB link is redundant, and commerical. The IAFD is pretty comprehensive, and has less advertising. Your thoughts? Oldcritter 4:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've personally felt this way as well... It does seem far more commerical than the IAFD and IMDB. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 15:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
"Commercial" doesn't bug me. I've found several times that the site with the most information on an erotic performer was the Excalibur Films / Adult Porn Star Mall site, which is even more commercial than the AFDB. (Most recent case in point: Taija Rae - Excalibur Films site - compare to much skimpier LukeIsBack, IAFD, or AFDB sites) Low on information bugs me, but the actual commercialism of the AFDB is relevant; it is showing a lot of video cover images that the performer appeared in. I would argue that is actually useful. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
You have a good point there - it does have it's value, and all the databases have sales links to one degree or another. I guess for me it is a question of what the primary purpose of the DB and how it relates to the WP policy. Unless there is a consensus to drop the link, then I am OK with leaving it be. Oldcritter 21:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when wasn't IMDB commercial? You do realize it's owned by Amazon.com right? I count 1 top banner, 2 side banners and 3 sponsored links at the bottom when looking at their page for Taija Rae. Not to mention IMDBpro and A9 web search. Heck, if I'm not mistaken they charge actors money to submit a photo of themselves. --Pinworm 19:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what does it matter if there is information for the article? Brjatlick 03:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mixed race exotic porn stars

There are many porn stars considered exotic because of mixed race features, usually Asian and American or Asian and European. Tera Patrick is the best current example I think, and there has been dispute over whether Kascha Papillon is one as well. Also, Nautica Thorn and Kristara Barrington (most of whom we conventionally label as Asian). There should be a category for "Mixed-race exotic porn stars" or at least for "mixed-race" porn stars. Do you think so? Brjatlick 04:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acceptable sources of fair use photos

Acordding to the guidelines on this page, it is acceptable to claim fair use for DVD covers images illustrating the article on the person depicted on the cover. Is that really inline with Wikipedia Fair Use policy? According to my interpretation of WP:FAIR#Images, such images should only be used when critical comentary on the work (the movie, not the performer) is being made. Probably, the rationally is the same used in fair use counterexample #7. --Abu Badali 21:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Since it isn't inline with WP:FAIR, I'll remove the guideline on covers. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 00:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:FAIR is a guideline, not policy. I think that the use of low resolution cover art is fair use, as it does not devalue the intellectual property of the maker; indeed quite the opposite - it could be advantageous to them to have the cover displayed here. Has there been an instance where an adult studio has objected to the inclusion here of their cover art?Oldcritter 05:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
If we decide that this use is acceptable, we should not go against the broader guidelines. We could, instead, explain or arguments there and chage the guideline as a whole. I don't think it would be good to make porn movies a special case. --Abu Badali 05:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to concur with this. While WP:FAIR is a guideline, do note that fair use is part of United States copyright law, which superscedes any Wikipedia rule or guideline when it comes to these things. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 16:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I read the guidlines, and the discussion behind them, and compared them to the article fair use. I believe Wikipedia is being overly conservative with regards to media covers. The use of a movie cover to illustrate an article on a performer violates none of the four critical principles defining fair use. I suppose we could try and persuade the rest of the community, but that is going to take a lot of effort from the (pages of) discussions I read. My thought is that, until it becomes policy, we don't include covers on the acceptable use list, but on the other hand, lets not go plunging through every image or article deleting them until it is settled. Maybe we can come up with a weasly way of using the covers - perhaps including limited critical commentary on that particular movie (and how much would be enough?) to justify the image. I am not real proud of that, but for a lot of performers, it will be that or no useable photo at all. Your thoughts? Oldcritter 00:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in offline releases of Wikipedia based on their importance, regardless of quality. Although this project covers a topic too specialized for a general release, we may want to consider including these articles in later releases. Hopefully it will also help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to your Arts WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 05:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There's an interesting task for this project. I'll start a subheading, since I will probably want to re-edit my list, and also imagine several people will have their own list of "most important porn stars".

[edit] Anon E Mouse's list

OK, let me start with the ones that I think will be hard to dispute:
  • Traci Lords - moderately important star in her own right, but her underage scandal made her a legend
  • Jenna Jameson - most popular currently active star
  • John Holmes - the iconic male star, death from AIDS also says something about the effect of that disease on the industry
  • Linda Lovelace - star of the single most famous porn movie, became noted anti-porn activist

"Second rank" (also important, but possibly disputable as most important)

AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

    • Pornographers make porn stars my friend, they should definitely be in the project... maybe some famous directors too (Paul Thomas (porn director) doesn't even have an article?), also MUST have Behind the Green Door! Brjatlick 00:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
A very good list. Also, let's not forget the Mitchell brothers and Suze Randall. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 00:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, since people like my list, here are a few more "second rank"s:

  • Gloria Leonard - never #1, but often a noted #2: as a performer, in The Opening of Misty Beethoven, then, as a publisher, with High Society; the combination is especially notable. She also held several high ranking porn organization offices.
  • The Stewardesses - not very notable as porn (no performers did anything else), but the highest grossing 3D movie of all time; not just highest grossing 3D porn movie, highest grossing 3D movie. This is a "self nom" of sorts, as I wrote most of the article, so I'm probably biased.

AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's excellent, thank you very much! Since there is (as far as I know) no WikiProject for pornographers, this is the right place to list Hefner et al. I'll add all these to your listing, and feel free to add assessments or articles to this list, or to update it. Cheers, Walkerma 06:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partial Filmography

I would like to propose that no more than a partial filmography be provided for any performer - just to throw a number on it, say 6 of their most notable performances. No need to duplicate IAFD and other databases, and I think it will improve the look of the articles. Your thoughts? Oldcritter 06:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to this only if the works are somehow notable to the career of the performer. For instance, if the film the performer was in won an award or if it is somehow noteworthy pornography covered by a source, like AVN or adultfyi.com. A partial filmography, if applicable, should include:
  1. Performer's first movie.
  2. Movies that the performer has been in that have garnered awards.
  3. Movies that the performer has been in that have been newsworthy.
  4. Performer's last movie (of their career, not their latest film).
Any additional thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 14:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a good start. For porn movies, you could have a criteria that a particular movie features the performer the most (as in length of time on screen) or perhaps a turning point in their career (weight change, breast enhancement, whatever). My main goal here is to avoid a laundy list of every film they ever appeared by agreeing to no more than "X" number of films as part of a standard Porn Bio template.Oldcritter 16:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
That'd work for me. I've been pulling out the various filmographies as I've been coming across them as they tend to be little more than listcruff. The only item on Joe's list I can see as being problematic would be the third one: "newsworthy". Can we define this as being films that have garnered mainstream press attention? Tabercil 16:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Huh? why so limiting? I look at Sylvester Stallone or Arnold Schwarzennegger and see every movie they ever breathed on, no different from IMDB. Not that every compilation that cops a scene should be included in a porn star bio, but if she's done 100 films there should be at least a dozen or more worth noting! Brjatlick 01:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Sylvester Stallone or Arnold Schwarzennegger may be wrong. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Abu Badali 03:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Abu Badali on this one. I don't think it's important to list every single film a mainstream actor or actress is in. I believe a partial filmography should contain career or critical highlights. For instance, in Arnold's case, Terminator and Total Recall come immediately to mind. Also, it should be noted that many of Wikipedia's articles aren't really high standard articles and may violate existing Wikipedia policies, such as those listed in WP:NOT. One of the obvious reasons why those two articles have such long filmographies is because no one has challenged their existance as of yet. (Also, the fact remains that there are many non notable mainstream actors that proliferate Wikipedia as well, and their existance is viewed upon as a means to justify the existance of articles on non-notable pornographic actors as well, more often than not.)-- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 04:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
(Additional newer comments that were here have been moved to the Partial filmographies redux section.)

I'd add another to Joe's excellent numbered list:

5. Movies that themselves have individual entries in the Wikipedia.

That's somewhat similar to #3, "newsworthy", since, hopefully, we don't have non-newsworthy movies with individual entries, but it shouldn't replace it, since possibly we just haven't gotten around to making the entry for that film. On the other hand, it's less debatable than whether a movie is newsworthy or not: if the entry on the movie survived AfD, then it's worth a link in the actor's filmography. This also encourages cross-linking, one of the things that makes Wikipedia fun... I mean great, didn't I write great? I haven't checked, but suspect this would probably cover the Schwarzennegger and Stallone issues, since most of their films are multi-million-dollar internationally released epics that have, and usually deserve, individual entries.

I'd also expand the "notable to the career of the performer" clause to add "notable role in the movie". If Jane Schmoe had a bit part in the set of 20 blockbusters, then became famous herself for other things, the 20 blockbusters don't deserve 20 entries in her filmography since she wasn't notable to them. (Though a sentence saying that she worked in minor roles in many films before becoming famous would probably not be out of place.) AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay folks, I've started a clause based on what I've seen above regarding filmographies in the main project page. Give it a read through and provide feedback please, as I'd like to implement it on a couple of pages ASAP (e.g., Monique Covét). Tabercil 02:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Pretty good. I added a clause that awards should be for the entire movie or the performer's role - if performer A was in a movie that won an award for "best scene" that didn't involve the performer, that shouldn't count. I also changed "been worthy of mainstream news attention" to "received mainstream news attention", since it is not to us to judge if they really deserved it, just that they got it. :-).
However the phrase "Filmographies should be limited to only films that meet at least one of the following criteria:" bothers me. That will mean that some of our entries won't get a filmography at all, beyond "first movie", which seems kind of rough for articles on actors. It's not much of an actor article if it says "Jane Schmoe has appeared in 137 films", if it doesn't at least partially answer the obvious next question "like what?". Clearly dozens of non-notable films wouldn't be reasonable, but I think a few are needed. I want to take a line from Oldcritter's original proposal, and allow a limited number of films that have been relatively notable to the performer's career, even not meeting the other criteria. Say five non-notable films, plus "first", or four plus "first and last"? Any films that meet the criteria can be listed without limit.
In short, I want to change that "Filmographies should be limited to only six films unless all listings meet at least one of the following criteria:" AnonEMouse (squeak)
The edits you made are good - in fact I'm kicking myself for not saying that in the first place.  :)
As for the "Filmographies should be limited...", I can see what you're trying to say but the phrasing is a little weak IMO. How about: "Filmographies are to be limited to six films at most; for a filmography to run above that length, the added listings must meet at least one of the following criteria:". Tabercil 19:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Quick note to advise that I'm changing the "Filmographies should be..." text to reflect AnonEMouse's comment. Tabercil 04:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has continued at Partial filmographies redux

[edit] Ban pay links?

Can we ban links to pay sites, other than the official site of the star? Or is there maybe such a ban already in place? Sick of people adding links to pay sites to articles, especially sites that have nothing to do with the star except they have maybe a gallery or use her name to draw customers! Brjatlick 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The list needs to be sent up to the Wikipedia developers, since I believe they have ultimate control over that. We should probably create a list of links to ban first prior to any communication with them, so as to help them make the most efficient use of their time. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 03:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
When I started editing, I felt that way, but it was pointed out to me that some commercial sites have information of use - the AFD was one example. Certainly, links to galleries and so forth are beyond the scope of this project, and should be removed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of links (see What Wikipedia is not), so I would Be Bold about removing them. Oldcritter 03:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a way to block the addition of some specific links that are added over and over, or added to different pages? Or is it worth the time even, I guess the linkers could just change web addresses? Brjatlick 06:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adult pornstar mall

Just a short heads-up that the site adult-pornstar-mall has been listed here as being spam. As well, Naconkantari has gone through and pulled a lot of those links out. Everybody might want to double check that:

  1. all of the links to that site are indeed gone from Wikipedia
  2. that we don't lose anything by that mass purge. For instance, the page at a-p-m for Belladonna hosted a pair of informative interviews (which I was able to find elsewhere on the net).

Dat's all.... Tabercil 02:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you... I've fixed the link. Tabercil 11:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed also, and asked for it to be un-blacklisted. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#www.adult-pornstar-mall.com Seems like my wish was granted, and it's back to being allowed. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be un-blacklisted now. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 04:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
It should be allowed! It is as useful a resource as anything out there, and every star should have this link. That's just my opinion. Brjatlick 05:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia 1.0 prep work

Since we have been contacted by the 1.0 editorial team, I would just like to say that I encourage all participants to begin work on brining the articles on the list to begin work on enhancing the articles, namely Jenna Jameson, Linda Lovelace, Traci Lords and John Holmes, as they are the ones that have been identified as high priority for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. I am going to begin working on a critique of the Jenna Jameson article at Talk:Jenna Jameson, since that's probably the most currently important article on there. If you wish to help, please visit the featured article guidelines and peer review to learn what we need to do in order to get the articles up to snuff. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 05:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to weigh in on the Cover Issue

I have begun a discussion on Fair Use regarding what I believe are the overly restrictive WP guidelines on movie cover art. I would encourage those with an opinion on the issue to make it known there.Oldcritter 23:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim South

Does someone of you want to expand this article? It is in danger of deletion because South is not deemed notable enough. I think he is, and the article should be expanded a bit. I could try, but I'm not a native speaker of English, and preferrably someone with better language skills than me should do it. Regards --Rosenzweig 16:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked around and added two good sources, a Hustler article and a 60 Minutes transcript. That's pretty notable - it won't get deleted now. Please feel free to expand it, and others will fix your grammar when needed. Be Bold. I understand he won an AVN Award, and was the agent who recruited Traci Lords... AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of HIV-positive people

Hi, I am trying to provide sources for persons included on this list. Including porn stars who have, or died of, aids. It's quite difficult find reliable sources for that. Usually the only sources I could find were forums or IMDB, which are both not the best sources. Does anyone here know another place/or book where I could find that kind of information? Garion96 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • One place where you can find some of that info is the Dead Porn Stars page at IAFD. They also have links to a couple of other pages with that information... Tabercil 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I will check that one out. Garion96 (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

I just wanted to let you know that the Biography WikiProject has been reorganized and we wanted to see if you guys were interested in merging with us? We've reorganized it so that it's more like the Military history project with task forces for the specialized areas. One of the task forces we could create could be Actors and Directors-- by merging with us and becoming a task force, you wouldn't lose anything! You'd keep your same page here, it would just be redirected to Actors task force (which we'd create) and you would continue as before, except that instead you'd also gain the benefits of being part of a larger project. We would give you a parameter to our Project banner (actors-task-force=yes) and a note would appear that says the article is a part of that task force (see example on military history article), plus having peer reviews and collaborations, and being able to grade articles by class and importance so that the articles can be part of the WP:1.0 project and much more... Let me know what you think! If you are interested, you need to add your project to the task force vote we're currently having plange 16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales has decided that the biographies of adult performers are to be treated differently than those of other public figures, with a higher standard of privacy (see Talk: Brandy Alexandre, so I don't see the point in folding the projects together.Oldcritter 16:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use publicity photos

I altered the description of these on the project page. We need to be careful: images that promote a porn star are actually likely to NOT be Publicity photos as Wikipedia defines them. Mangojuicetalk 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More link talk

I'm currently in the midst of a revert tug-of-war with an anonymous user and I'm looking for a third party view. The page in question is Eve Laurence, and the bone of contention is a link which User:71.200.191.68 keeps adding in. The link is to Eve Laurence's "official fanlisting". He says: "She collaborates with it and it is an official fanlisting. I've got permission from Eve herself and she's contributed pictures for it. She wants to make sure her fans are getting what they need." (his comments on the Eve Laurence talk page). I say the listing is non-encyclopedic and constitutes linkspam. What does the peanut gallery say? Tabercil 01:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This peanut looked at the site, and it's not very useful (at least without registering). If it was useful (had interesting biographical information), then I would say to list it official or not, but the only thing that seems to be on in are a few pics. So for now I wouldn't add it - fansites with pics of dubious copyright status for porn stars are a dime a dozen. However, if you get actual proof that she is associated with the site, that might be an interesting tidbit in itself, and worth a sentence. So I'd ask for a Wikipedia:Verifiable reference. If she really is endorsing the site, ask her to post a link to it on her official site, saying she endorses it. If she does that, it will be interesting in itself, showing more fan interaction than most. If not, it's just another fan site. Even if she posts to it occasionally, that's not verifiable to be her - and, frankly, since the site has nothing on it, I wouldn't crack my shell over it. One peanut's opinion. AnonEPeanut (crunch) 06:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I would delete it. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, so even if it is "an official fansite", no harm is done by omitting it.Oldcritter 21:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non Contributors

I think we should remove the users that don't make pornographic edits for quite some time (User:AlexQ springs to mind). Also, I believe we should ask regular contributors to join via-user talk page. Does anyone oppose? Duane 11:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should divide the list into "presently active" and "presently inactive". People who may have contributed in the past shouldn't be excluded just because they don't contribute actively now. Other than that, I don't oppose contacting regular contributors who may be unaware of the project. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 16:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a great ideal :). Would you like me to make the list, or would you rather do it? Duane 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and did it myself. If you want to make changes, please don't hesitate to do so :). Duane 10:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Duane! :-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 20:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem. - Duane 20:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to use the Male adult bio template

Could someone be kind enough to walk me through the use of {{Male adult bio}}, please? I know we're not supposed to subst: it, but how do you get the parameter "prompts" to display in the edit window? I'm sooooooo confused. I swear I've looked elsewhere and can't find any information about how templates with parameters such as these are supposed to be edited. Thanks.—Chidom talk  20:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I admit {{Male adult bio}} is less user friendly than {{Female adult bio}}; when I need to use it, I generally copy and paste in the example template from {{Female adult bio}} and remove the letters "Fe". :-). Really. That seems to work for almost all of the parameters, though, unfortunately, the male template doesn't really use the AFDB and IAFD, those have to be entered separately. If someone knows templates and can bring Male to the level of Female, that would be much appreciated. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::smacks forehead::: Well, that makes sense! Thanks so much. To move things along, I was bold and lemmed {{Female adult bio}} to update {{Male adult bio}}; the one obstacle I can't seem to solve is that of the hyperlink captions not showing up unless there's data for the hyperlink parameter(s). (IMDB, IAFD, AFDB)

Help on making those parameters optional would be great; the template is much easier to use now. Thanks again.

(By the way, in case you're wondering about that red link up there, "lemmed" is past tense of a verb based on the actions of lemmings; i.e., following blindly. I find a reference to it here, but can't find much about it at all. Dare I say that I picked it up while hosting trivia games on an ISP that shall remain unnamed?)—Chidom talk  21:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the {{male adult bio}} was derived from a really early version of the {{female adult bio}}. I'll see what I can do to make the male adult bio template functional on par with its parent, as it were. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 22:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partial filmographies redux

(Just to be sure this doesn't get lost in the shuffle, and because it looks like some edit wars might be forthcoming, I've moved my comments and responses thereto from the original Partial Filmography section to this new section and changing the indent levels appropriately. To determine what was moved, anything that was dated before this comment came from the original section.)—Chidom talk  23:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to (sort of) play Devil's Advocate, how would one go about finding the rest of the filmography if it's not here? Is everyone going to be diligent about providing links to other resources? And, actually, why should they have to? Why should a user have to go somewhere else to get the information that they wanted to find here? Let's say I want to make sure I see every film Katharine Hepburn was ever in—why shouldn't the complete filmography be here? This is not indiscriminate information. If the actor/actress (either porn or mainstream) is important enough to have an article here, their work should be important information, too. There seems to be a propensity to use "indiscriminate information" to keep the size of Wikipedia smaller. While I realize that server space becomes an issue at some point, the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide access to knowledge. I'm much more in favor of the "one stop shopping" approach rather than the "send 'em somewhere else for the details" approach. 'nuff said.—Chidom talk  19:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point, and I agree. Personally, I will be restoring full filmographies wherever I see they have been deleted by trolls and vandals. The exclusive bad apple 19:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Heh. If you count those people who cut the filmographies back as "troll & vandals", then you're including me in that list. And I still say full filmographies are not needed , as they can be found for the actors & actresses through a combination of IMDB, IAFD and AFDB. Links to the appropriate pages will usually be found in the info box on the right of the article. Tabercil 21:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
An obsessive Katharine Hepburn fan would also be interested in her favorite color, where she buys her shoes, and who styles her hair; we're not going to go into details on that in her article. There are hundreds of hotels that are very proud that "George Washington slept here"; we shouldn't list them in the George Washington article.
If an otherwise notable person makes a single otherwise mediocre porn film, that is generally very worth mentioning in their article, sometimes even deserving an article of its own. If an otherwise notable person makes half a dozen otherwise mediocre porn films, they are generally worth half a dozen lines in their article. However, with compilations, film lists for certain prolific porn actors reach into the thousands. Listing all of them would completely swamp any other content in the article. At a certain level of quantity over quality ratio, it really is unimportant trivia. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Also note the exceptions for first film, last film, and films that are notable in their own right, have won awards in any way connected to the performer, or otherwise have an article of their own in the Wikipedia. Those are fine to list, however long the list gets. (Most, if not all, Katharine Hepburn films will meet those criteria.) But we desperately need to avoid a long list of "Yet Another Compilation 49; Yet Another Compilation With Bells On 66; Stars With Footage Going Cheap 495;..." that otherwise will be the overwhelming bulk of most porn star articles. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a terrible analogy. You compare trivial details, such as favorite color, to a film that was made. Actors and actresses are famous for the fact they make movies, why shouldn't all of their movies be listed? George Washington was first famous as a general, so why shouldn't a complete list of every battle he fought in be included? And I believe there is. The same goes for actors and actresses. Films are their life accomplishments, it is only natural that a complete list of their works be included. It seems like this entire argument against complete filmographies is a plot of the far-right conservative wikipedia editors who have an agenda to try to limit the expansion of pornography information as much as possible. Mactabbed 18:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Point taken; however, I can see leaving out compilations, after all, they are collections of scenes from films which would already be listed in the filmography. In the case of Tony Tedeschi, his IAFD profile lists 1095 films, of which only 71 are compilations (don't ask; Excel is a wonderful thing!), there are another 470 listed at AFDB (which was pointing at Victoria Paris from his article here, by the way), that aren't included at IAFD, so I can understand your concern. (I didn't check the AFDB listings for compilations.)

In the case of gay pornography, however, there are good reasons to include complete filmographies, e.g., to my knowledge, no actor has been in thousands of films, and there is no other good single source to find their filmography. The IAFD and AFDB either don't bother to list the performer at all (search on Al Parker, one of the "icons" of gay porn, at IAFD and you get "No performers match your search term"; or don't have anything like a complete list—at AFDB, they list 4 films; and we all know what an excellent source IMDB is—they list a total of 14 distinct films, including ones he produced and directed. Alternatively, a search at tlavideo.com yields a total of 44 films (including ones he directed/produced), 2 books in which he modeled, and another book where he was the subject. Randy White, another prolific gay performer, has around 40 films as well.

In order to cobble together filmographies, however, I've had to visit up to 8 different websities, eliminate duplications, and edit down a list. Along the same lines, I remember running across an article on a gay porn performer here that I couldn't find on any of the websites I usually search, but knew personally that he was indeed a well-known performer! (I just wish I could remember who it was; he would be a great example.)

Finally, yes, a die-hard fan would want to know about hair stylists, etc., but wanting to watch the entire body of work doesn't mean you need all that other information. Porn stars are generally noted for the work they do; not to list that work is to withhold information. Again, if they're "notable" enough to be here, their work is "notable" enough to be listed. Perhaps the solution, given the Tony Tedeschis of the straight industry, is to have a maximum number of films? Say, 50? Although I prefer including information as to other cast members, that wouldn't be required; in two columns, 50 films is 25 lines of type.—Chidom talk  21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has continued at Filmographies, round three newer comments have been moved there.

[edit] Interesting Discovery

I just found out that the Adult Film Database links aren't as picky as they might seem. If you include the actor/actress's ID number, as long as there is any name after that, it finds the correct profile. So, for example, ...ActorID/94/Name/ yields the same return as ...ActorID/94/Victoria_Paris/.

I mention this as we might want to simply the Adult Male / Adult Female templates to only ask for the ID number and substitute in the "/Name" after whatever number is typed. Less data entry, less margin for error. I'm hesitant to mess with this sort of thing on the templates, anyone want to give it a whack? Shot? Try? Go?—Chidom talk  21:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Check out, please

Check out the talk page for Category:Indian porn stars. I have put quite a few article requests there. It seems that the category is extremely short on articles, and has massive growth opportunities. (Aditya Kabir 17:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Ongoing deletion of Japanese model articles/lists

I'm pretty much a Wiki newbie, so don't know if what I am seeing going on is business-as-usual, or a user intentionally censoring Wikipedia. To me, anyway, it looks like the latter. A certain editor is systematically removing articles on Japanese porn actors/models.

Editor is currently deleting Shoko Goto whom I happen to know is a very popular new actress/model, but who obviously does not meet the American standards of notability. This is just the type of model who belongs on a List of Japanese female porn stars. Coincidentally, this same editor had this list deleted in June. At the time he claimed, "That's what Categories are for. In fact there is a Category:Japanese_porn_stars." Since then, he has been systematically depopulating the category.

The last item on the user's [discussion page shows he has made a practise of this sort of underhanded way of deleting categories of which he does not approve. Investigating the user's other edits (here and here for example) shows a pattern of agressive reverting to get his POV, threatening other editors with 3-revert violation, and when engaged in discussion, refusing to see other views, engaging in bafflingly absurd logic, and threatening other editors with personal attacks when they address his edits. Personally, I do not wish to become involved in this sort of dialog.

There should be a place for unbiased, non-commercial information on these models. Wikipedia could be just such a place, if not for this dishonest form of censorship, by applying an American test to models from other countries. Even as well-known (to those who know the subject) an actress/model as Kimiko Matsuzaka clearly fails to meet the American standards Wiki sets for porn star notability. I have considered writing an article on her, indeed any coverage of the Japanese actress/model area would be incomplete without a mention of her. But I know this would be a wasted effort, since this editor is happily progressing towards his apparent goal of erasing every name of every Japanese adult model from Wikipedia.

Again, I am not saying every Japanese model needs to have her own article. That's what lists are for. The article Shoko Goto, with 26 movies to her credit in about a year, is clearly going to be deleted. And yet, since the list is deleted, 26 movies don't even allow her to be mentioned on a list.

If the behavior of this editor is considered acceptable, Wikipedia should not even claim to be uncensored or plainly culturally biased, or that it even attempts to be so. Dekkappai 04:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is known as the "notability debate", I think, best described in this essay. In short, to keep the article, we need to show that verifiable sources consider the star notable. For people, this is generally the standards at WP:BIO, for porn stars specifically, usually WP:PORN BIO. All you need to do is show a few independent sources have written specifically about the star, and the article will be kept. This isn't a cultural issue - they can be Japanese articles. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, AnonEMouse. I think there is something more than "notability debate" going on here however. I would even agree that not all Japanese model/actresses need stand-alone articles. That's why we had the List of Japanese female porn stars (saved in my workspace). However, the editor who is nominating these model articles for deletion also nominated that list for deletion. He first edited that extensive list of models who had no article (and probably did not need them), down to a list of only models who had articles and stated here that "This list really does not serve any purpose. That's what Categories are for. In fact there is a Category:Japanese_porn_stars." He is now systematically de-populating that category. It seeems to me to be an underhanded form of censoring Wikipedia of all Japanese models, not only their articles, but also even mentioning their names on a list. Dekkappai 17:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Dekkappai seems to be under the false impression that I delete articles. However, I'm not an admin. All articles must go through the AfD process before they are deleted. If a person or a porn star is not notable, then there does not need to be article on him or her. It's a simple matter. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] an uniform epithet

I propose that we have an uniform epithet for porn stars. A few examples: Cindy Crawford (erotic actress), Simone (adult actress) or Gauge (porn star). Notice how all 3 of these porn stars have different epithets in the () part of the article name?

I propose the uniform epithet be (porn actor/actress). --Philo 06:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong support, but I'm not sure about the name. The most common epithet (by far) is "porn star", the categories are named et al, and the project is called WikiProject Porn stars. By using another term, it throws off everything else. It also could be seen as a sign of censorship or being PC on Wikipedia's part. On the other hand, some porn stars do go on to become "serious" actors/actresses, and then a whole new problem arises. I guess what I'm saying is, I'd use "porn star" or "actor/actress", but not some watered-down term like "erotic actor/actress" or "adult actor/actress". 24.126.199.129 12:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
yeah, I support porn actor/actress --Philo 03:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
also, "Porn star" is a misnomer for pornographic actors. this would be paramount to calling any actor who has ever appeared in a mainstream movie as a "Movie star" - not everyone is famous. --Philo 05:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I prefer "porn star" for four reasons: it's shorter; it's established usage; it's gender neutral, which avoids the transexual question; and calling them "actors" and "actresses" is not accurate for 90% of them. "Performer" maybe, but to the overwhelming majority of them, "Hamlet" is something you have for breakfast with a small egg. Philo is correct that not all of them are "stars", but as a general purpose encyclopedia, we should only be concerned with the ones who are. "Not a star" makes for a perfectly fine reason for deletion. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with "porn star" as well. Oldcritter 23:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Ordinary actors and actresses are labeled as such, (actor) or (actress), shouldn't we keep porn stars' format parallel to this, so (adult actor) or (adult actress)? (added by User:Mactabbed but without sig)
How about "Porn actor"? "Adult actor",while in common usage, isn't ideal for categorization because it suggests a parallel with "child actor" -- clearly a different meaning of adult. "Porn star" sounds a bit colloquial, though. I strongly disagree with "actor/actress" -- "actor" is the preferred version for actors of both sexes. "Erotic" isn't descriptive and isn't in common usage. How about "Porn actor"? It integrates it into "actor" category generally and gets away from the "star" term, which is a bit POV. --LQ 19:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors). The discussion has moved to an archive, here and here. My point then and now is that referring to these performers as "actors" and "actresses" is stretching it for quite a few of them; lots of the films don't require any acting at all. My suggestion was "porn performer", but going back and changing everything at this point would be incredibly difficult; comments were made to the effect that time is better spent on other things. Additionally, the guideline uses "actors", rather than any other terminology.
That's not to say it can't be changed; some questions to ponder before doing so are:
  • change it to what?
  • is this important in terms of time spent?
  • is this important in increasing clarity?
  • does it improve the encyclopedia?
  • would the change make these articles (and/or guideline) more encyclopedic?
  • (the ultimate question) should it change?
Even though I'd prefer a different epithet than what currently exists, I think the answer to all the above questions is "no". Just a thought.—Chidom talk  04:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dating policy

The dating policy should be changed to simply using the Template:persondata. 24.126.199.129 12:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, according to Wikipedia:Persondata, "The addition of persondata will not affect the normal display of an article since the information remains hidden unless a user sets their user stylesheet to display it." So it doesn't take over the role of the dating policy, but can be used in addition to it. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Really? I thought it automatically put stuff in categories for you. Well, good thing I asked. Thanks for clarifying that. 24.126.199.129 04:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AVN Awards nomination and selection procedure?

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I couldn't think of any better, so here's my question: Does anybody know how exactly the winners of the annual AVN Awards are selected, especially the person-related awards (performers, directors)? Who nominates persons? And who selects the winners? Is there a jury? Do AVN readers vote? Or is this solely at the discretion of the AVN staff? I looked around the net a bit, but couldn't find anything about this. Regards --Rosenzweig 18:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Mitchell

There is a dispute over the validity of Sharon Mitchell's Ph.D degree on the talk page, and an anon keeps changing a sentence to assert that the Ph.D is not valid. Since I am not part of this wikiproject and would rather not violate WP:3RR, and since Sharon Mitchell was a porn star, I was wondering if someone from here could help resolve this. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 08:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gay vs. Straight

Reading through everything, I was wondering if it's worth it to create the "Gay" and "Straight" sub-groups for the Porn stars project? Would it help to focus people's efforts, to deal with minor differences between categories, and make the respective workloads smaller? Or would it just start and endless division of subprojects: "Male vs Female Straight Porn Stars." "Bisexual Pornstars" "Gay for pay porn star project" etc. Jodyw1 03:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletes

Heads up folks. I've found that an as-yet-unknown number of porn star articles got speedy deleted by User:Centrx on September 17th, tagged as "A7" in the deletion logs (whatever that means). Known deletions included Kaitlyn Ashley and Juli Ashton both of whom met the notability criteria (the first for having over 100 films, the second for an AVN award). The Kaitlyn Ashley article has been resurrected, and I've asked for the Juli Ashton one to be revived. My concern is why those two got speedied and who else got articles pulled out at the same time. Tabercil 19:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFDs underway

The anti-porn star crusade continues on Wikipedia, with a number of AFDs currently underway for the likes of SaRenna Lee and Wendy Whoppers. Right now I'm in the lone voice in the wilderness supporting them. 23skidoo 14:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AVN links

Got an issue over some links and I thought I'd bring it up here for viewing by more eyeballs as well as general discussion. In the Raylene article, I'm currently in a discussion over the links that were placed in it, and one of the links was to an article on the AVN website. That link was pulled out by User:Dalbury, citing that it was a commercial link as well as one that was not reliable. My concern is that if AVN is not considered a reliable link, considering that AVN is pretty much the trade magazine of the adult industry in North America, we're going to lose a lot of material. Should AVN be usable in Wikipedia considering it's "commercial"? Can it be considered reliable?? Tabercil 14:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Very Reliable --HeartThrobs 21:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Is this still an issue? As you said, AVN is the major trade magazine of the adult industry, and produces the annual AVN Awards, the most noteworthy of such award shows. Just like any other magazine, online or otherwise, it accepts advertising. That doesn't make it "commercial".—Chidom talk  06:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) as notability guideline

This proposed guideline has been extensively used and referred to for its intended purpose, to simplify Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion, during the past five months, an average of more than every other day. It has simplified discussion, and made it less contentious. It has grown and reacted to discussion and the results of those AfDs; it reflects community practice, and is the sum of many points of view. It has been five months as a proposal. It is not perfect, but it is a lot better than nothing. I believe it is now time to mark it as a full fledged notability guideline, and subset of WP:BIO.

Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)#Ready to become a notability criteria guideline, and help us reach consensus on marking it as such. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J. Bruce Howie photos

Some logic flaw here: while it is nice that JBH has consented to the use of the CES 2003 photos on his website under a CC license, it seems to me that he is not the photographer, since he is on every one of these photos and there is a statement "various photographers". So can he license photos he did not take himself? --Rosenzweig 19:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Oy. Just what I need to contemplate on a Friday afternoon - a zen debate over pictures of porn stars <G>. I am going to say that the circumstances behind these photos is probably that it is Howie's camera that the photo was taken with, and that he had someone else at that booth take the photo of him standing next to the given porn star. In that case, the identity of the photographer is unknowable since each photo would have a different "photographer". However, I would argue on the basis of the principle of "possession is 9/10th of the law", Howie is the copyright holder of the photos - after all, who else would have cause to have the originals of these photos? And the key point here is that it is the copyright holder who determines what license is used by Wikipedia on these photos. Tabercil 21:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

For the curious, we seem to be in two places, User:Badbilltucker/Culture_Directory#Films and User:Badbilltucker/Culture_Directory_2#Biography. From perusing Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/WikiProject, I think our listing, sad as it is, is correct - we don't do many formal reviews or collaborations, but we are still somewhat active. :-(. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. And, yes, every project is listed in all the "categories" (fields where there is more than one group) that it seemed to me that they qualify. B2T2 14:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to Boobpedia

greetings,

to all interested editors of the porn stars project, this is an invitation to a new wiki site dedicated to big boobs :) the address is http://www.boobpedia.com

if you are interested, please feel free to register and help out. it will be different from the porn-related pages on wikipedia for a few reasons (beside not having to worry about deletion :)

  1. it will be rated 18+ so it's possible to have nudity. i work in the industry and can get licensed pics for use.
  2. adult links to sites where the model/porn star can be found will be allowed, making the site useful for locating more content of anyone's favourite. boobpedia will also be useful for locating new models based on many criterion (so if someone wants to find a caucasian brunette with DD cup natural boobs he'll easily be able to)
  3. it encourages articles about any busty woman, even amateurs who give permission. there's no "noteworthiness" test, just a boob size requirement :)

it would be great if you are willing to help out. also if you know anyone who may be interested please don't hesitate to invite him/her. boobpedia may be very small now, but it will become the best resource site for big boobs! --Hexvoodoo 21:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Implementation

Are the "suggestions" here now to be used as a guideline for editing existing articles? If so, when did the information here become those guidelines?

For example, filmographies are being culled with the information here as the reason for doing so. I am still concerned about gay porn performers, and no one seems to want to reach some sort of consensus with regard to those concerns. My last comment about filmographies, proposing a maximum number of films, had no response. In most cases for gay performers, leaving out compilations should keep the filmography down to a manageable size; they don't make thousands of films as some straight performers do. I'm not looking forward to some edit-happy Wikipedian pulling up all the gay porn articles and reducing filmographies without the slightest idea of which films won awards, etc. Perhaps another solution is to "grandfather" existing articles in somehow on this issue?

It would also be helpful if some statement were made about the usage of the information here with regard to editing articles. Thanks.—Chidom talk  10:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean the one where you suggest setting the bar at listing 50 non-notable films? Honestly, that seems like quite a lot to me - not thousands, but still excessive. Feel free to argue your point further, of course. Remember, first film, last film, and films with awards or otherwise individual notability are not bound by the 6 limit; what's more, they will (or should) probably be mentioned in the main body of the article, which should cut down on the edit-happy Wikipedians that worry you. (Not eliminate them, of course, but that's the nature of a Wiki; I'd be surprised if any given article gets more film removals than outright vandalism.)
Usage of information? I don't know, frankly. I tried hard to find how guidelines get set, when I wanted to mark WP:PORNBIO a notability criteria guideline, and didn't find anything satisfactory. I had to do the best I could, which was far better than the last and most relevant guideline setting I could find, and even so my actions there are being questioned (see the talk page there). So is the 6 film filmography rule a formal guideline, just because the project seems to like it? I don't know, but I do recommend following it. Whether or not it's "the law", it's a good idea. AnonEMouse (squeak)

Actually, the suggestion to set a bar at 50 films was in response to the much lower limit of 6 films that apparently will be the guideline. I strongly disagree that we shouldn't include filmographies here. As far as gay films go, most of the major adult databases include little or no information on the performers and I know of only one commercial site that lists films that are no longer commercially available for purchase. IAFD, AFDB, and IMDB are all jokes when it comes to non-mainstream, non-Ameriican porn; this information isn't readily available elsewhere. If a performer warrants an article here, then the body of their work should be listed; that information will be lost forever if not collected when it is more current. In my view, including filmographies for performers warranting articles here is not an "indiscriminate collection of information"—it preserves information that will eventually be available nowhere else. While I can appreciate that no one needs to list 1,000 or more films for a performer, that is an issue largely for fairly modern mainstream American pornography, not for other genres and porn from other countries, as has been discussed elsewhere.

((Placing tongue firmly in cheek here)) Daring to compare pornography with mainstream film, the article for Michael Caine, a prolific, award-winning actor, includes a filmography listing in excess of 100 films. The majority of those films have articles here; whether they should or not is, to my mind, questionable: take a look at Mr. Destiny, Miss Congeniality, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, etc. (And yes, I enjoyed some of those films immensely—that's not a good criterion for having an article here, however.) If there is going to be an article about every film that a well-known actor/actress appeared in, why have a different standard for porn? My personal favorite of the articles referenced in Mr. Caine's article is The Actors, the full text of which follows:

The Actors is a 2003 film starring Dylan Moran and Michael Caine.
This comedy film-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
This article about a crime film is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

(The article was created on 2006-05-28 and the last revision was on 2006-06-29; had it been a porn-related article, it would have been killed within an hour.)

If a well-known porn performer is in a film, let's write an article about it with as much information and/or substance as is in the previous examples. In fact, many mainstream films have official webistes with scads of information; Miss Congeniality apparently has three: one each for Miss Congeniality and the sequel, Armed and Fabulous, and an additional official UK site. The IMDB isn't such a bad source of information for lots of mainstream films but provides little or no information about pornographic ones. Let's face it—information on porn films is hard to come by (couldn't resist) difficult to obtain. Wouldn't that be greater justification for having an article about the porn film here?

((Removing tongue from cheek. Note to self: never again try to chew gum with tongue in cheek.))

All that by way of demonstrating that I haven't entirely lost my sense of humor about this. I seem to be the minority voice crying in the wilderness, or perhaps I'm the minority among minority voices who hasn't just given up and gone away.—Chidom talk  19:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that reference to mainstream actors is that valuable a point. Mainstream actors, like porn stars and musicians, have rabid and obsessive fans who want complete filmographies and lots of other information in whatever reference source they like the best. Someone should fix those articles, but they shouldn't define the rules for all articles--we don't want lowest common denominator to be our standard. Those articles that are too long and crowded with fancruft don't define wikipedia; rather, wikipedia is defined as a general reference source. It needs to be exclusive and selective, not comprehensive, or it ceases to be functional.
Your 50-film suggestion, for instance. In my opinion, it's way too long. You suggest leaving out the compilations, but that still leaves actors who have hundreds more films than the 50. What's the selection for those 50? How would people know what are compilations and what aren't? How will people keep from jockeying to get their favorite films listed in the 50? We already know the 50 aren't "notable," because if they were notable they would be outside the 6-film (or 50-film) limit anyway. (Plus it is unlikely that there are 50 notable films in any actor's career, porn or non-porn.)
The fact that there is no other good resource for something--the list of gay actor films for instance-- is not a reason for Wikipedia to jump in and fill the breach. It's a very good reason for someone to develop a database that meets that need for comprehensive information.
Your suggestion that gay porn stars are typically in fewer films and therefore their films are, as a rule, more notable, argues not for a general 50-film limit in all porn stars, but rather for a tiered or staggered limit--6 films for most stars; maybe 10 or 12 or special particular genres.
And all of these are guidelines. In rare instances that are individually justified, a complete filmography might be appropriate. Maybe someone makes 15 films and then dies young, or achieves mainstream stardom and abandons porn, or each film is regarded as a mini-masterpiece, or whatever. But as a guideline for the generic category of porn stars, 6 films seems workable to me; 50 seems way too big.

--LQ 23:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVD Covers

Me and User:Chidom got into a debate about DVD covers - prompted by my pulling one out of the Desireé Cousteau and he put an absolutely beautiful post on my talk page on the issue. I'm putting the entire post here so more eyeballs will see it and also see if we can't kick-start some action on the topic:

Bet you thought I forgot about this, huh? Nope. From Template talk:Albumcover.
"User:JYolkowski: If you want to use album covers in the artist's or single's page, write a paragraph about the album, and use the cover to illustrate that paragraph. There's probably no valid fair use rationale we could make to use the images for decorative purposes."
This seems reasonable and would, I think, meet the fair use policy requirements. A more appopriate image for the article (or perhaps an additional image) might be that of the cover of the DVD "Pretty Peaches" since that is the film for which she won the ADFA award. It's a horrible-looking illustration of her rather than a photograph, but since ostensibly the main purpose of the image is to illustrate the DVD, I don't know of a work-around. I've uploaded the Pretty Peaches image and added it to the article, feel free to remove it. Image:Desireé Cousteau on Pretty Peaches DVD cover.jpg. If you think it's too icky to use, or do wind up removing it from the article, just let me know and I'll put a speedy delete tag on it as the uploader.
I've expanded the information about both DVDs given the limited information in the plot summaries I found (and referenced); I think this bolsters the case to be made for fair use. (You may or may not have figured out that straight porn isn't my area of expertise, but I do know how to go hunting!)
I also added a videography. It's nine films rather than six; she worked for 10 years and released films in only 9 of them. The two that are mentioned in the article are repeated in the videography solely to list the distributor and, in the case of Inside..., the director.
Additionally, I think DVD covers really are different than magazine covers. Think of the variety of topics and subjects in a magazine vs. the limited subjects of a DVD, recording, etc. With a much narrower focus, DVDs and other recordings aren't as related to magazines as I also assumed. (I was using the magazine cover rationale as well, and then really thought about it; I think there's a difference between recordings and publications in the way subject matter meets fair use, but it's just an opinion.) You may want to kick this information around on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Porn stars, it seems the use of DVD covers hasn't been decided there, either. Thanks.—Chidom talk  21:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty good argument there... Tabercil 23:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MySpace

207.16.198.77 (talk • contribs) has been removing MySpace templates for articles en masse using WP:EL as justification (presumably "Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself."). A quick glance through MySpace's "What links here" gives a multitude of celebrities who have links to their accounts- Ricky Martin, Beyoncé Knowles, Björk, Jennifer Lopez etc. There has been discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links#Official MySpace pages, but a definite policy has not been decided upon yet. Olessi 19:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The following comments were originally posted on the talk page of User:Olessi.

I'm not sure why you posted a comment regarding MySpace at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Porn stars, none of the examples you list are porn stars. As for the examples you do list, I would remove the MySpace links—all of them have official websites which should suffice.—Chidom talk  19:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I listed the celebrity examples to show that MySpace links exist for "non-porn" biography articles, and was wondering if the only reason they are being removed from porn biographies is because of higher standards for such articles. Most people discussing the inclusion of MySpace pages at Wikipedia talk:External links seem to agree that MySpace links should be included if it is the "official" website or if it offers relevant information not already listed in the article. As some porn stars seem to have "official" MySpace pages but not official websites, it is unclear to me if some porn stars should have MySpace links but not others. Because many of the removals have been connected with the subject of this noticeboard, I mentioned them here so the rest of the community can become involved in the discussion. Olessi 20:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have mentioned the discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links#Official MySpace pages. Olessi 20:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filmographies, round three

Sigh... is there still a consensus that the guidelines we have filmographies for the adult actresses is still good and valid (i.e., 6 films at most, with exceptions past that number in specific cases)? My problem is that I've seen full filmographies added to the Courtney Cummz and Alexis Malone articles, and I want to be sure I'm on solid ground before I cull them back as per our suggestions... Tabercil 22:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Also Leah Luv ... --LQ 23:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
No, leave the complete filmographies for now until a concensus can be reached.

Moved from Partial filmographies redux above:

Complete filmographies should always be used. The argument against compete listings is simply another plot of the extreme conservatives who want to limit the amount of porn-related content on Wikipedia. "Obscene" images cannot be uploaded, actors must be "notable" enough to merit an article, and now only "partial" filmographies are allowed. When will the censorship end? Mactabbed 04:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Uh-huh. Right. You're accusing us of not playing fair when you yourself are currently under accusation of abusive edits and copyright violations - see the Admin noticeboard. Not an attack, just an observation. Tabercil 06:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I really wouldn't see a conservative (or any other) plot here. Partial filmographies are the standard in all actors, not just porn stars. For that matter, partial bibliographies are the standard in academics and writers. Look, the main problem with complete *ographies in wikipedia is the impracticality / impossibility of policing them. Any long list is difficult to police, because people simply won't be familiar with all the works. So who can remove false titles, erroneous titles, duplicate titles with slightly variant names, and so on. Imagine the no-compilations rule introduced above. Not everyone is going to read the rules and understand "no compilations," and someone will add compilations. But in a list of scores of works, people coming to the page de novo won't pick that out as a compilation. And even people who monitor and police the work may not be familiar with it as a compilation. In a list that purports to be "comprehensive", people are disinclined to remove errenous information because they're just not sure. This is why wikipedia isn't a good place for "complete" filmographies. Ideally, a complete filmography makes it easy for people to remove erroneous information as well as add in missing information. If you want a complete filmography for a star, for instance, you should include enough information to describe and identify each work -- such as ISBN, sources, production date, description, time, distribution, and so on, so that people can realize that there are duplicates with different names, etc. Hey, that's a resource like IMDB. Filmographies in an pornstar page would be too long to be readily edited or managed. --LQ 12:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
IMDB is not a reliable source of complete filmographies, for any sort of actor or actress, especially those who make pornography. Please see the discusssions at Partial filmographies and Partial filmographies redux above.—Chidom talk  00:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer_review#Jenna_Jameson

This is the another step in our semi-insane goal of eventually getting a WP:P* article to Wikipedia: Featured article status. Please weigh in with advice on how to improve the article. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] 21Sextury Productions

I created an article for 21Sextury Productions in October, but it was deleted in November for non-notability. The sources used for the article were all from websites associated with the company, so we should use third party sources when possible. I found an AVN link; please list them here if more relevant articles are found. Olessi 21:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Porn_stars_c447.html"