Talk:List of pornographic movie studios

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
List This page is a list and does not require a rating.

Contents

[edit] Making porn

im interested in making a porn movie. i want to know how to hire well known porn stars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doriandixon (talk • contribs) 05:58, 8 September 2005 UTC. (I added heading—Chidom talk  16:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Romania

Do you know any pornographic movie studio from Romania? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Serkanbulan (talk • contribs) 18:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC). (I added heading—Chidom talk  16:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Comprehensive Studio List

I have downloaded the studio list from tlaReleasing. There are 799 studios on the list; obviously, some of them are quite specialized and probably have never been heard of by people in the US. Any ideas on how to use (or not) this information?—Chidom talk  03:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viv thomas

What about Viv Thomas Productions? Jamesino 00:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Merge

I think the article should not be merge with Gay Porn Studios as the content is different from main stream and diserves it's own page. Gay Porn Studios page is not just a list of gay porn studios.--Quinnzach 03:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The merge has gone a head.--Quinnzach 03:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External commercial links

I know that adding all the external links to the homosexual studio names was an incredible amount of work; however, according to my reading of Wikipedia policies, it shouldn't be done. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Specifically, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files states:

"Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. See Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines."

At Wikipedia:External links, the What should be linked to section states:

"Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Sources available in both web and print editions should have a citation for the print edition as well as a link." (emphasis added)

Additionally, Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) Selection criteria states:

"Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." (emphasis added)

Links here should be wikilinks to a Wikipedia article on the studio which could then contain a link to the studio's website as a source of information for the article. For example, see Lucas Entertainment.

The Links normally to be avoided section in Wikipedia:External links goes on:

"Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming."

While I have advocated using external commercial sites as sources of information for videographies, the purpose of such use is to to obtain very specific information, i.e., a performer's videography. (More often than not, I use a commercial video retailer to avoid having to reference several different studio websites for a performer that has worked for many different studios.) I've had to defend this practice as it is often seen as falling into this prohibition; the only way I have salvaged using the links is to point out that I'm linking to the sites not to sell the videos, but to obtain information about them which is rarely found anywhere else. Linking to a site for a specific type of information is far different than linking to a website in general.

These guidelines and policies have been applied to the List of gay porn stars article as well—if a performer is listed who isn't important enough to "reasonably expect an article" to be "forthcoming in the future", the name is deleted from the list. Likewise, external links to performer websites have been removed from the list and where there is an article on the performer, added there.

Technically, then, this list needs to be culled to only include studio names that should eventually have articles here. I'm not up to the task of culling the existing list, however.

I recounted; the [http:www.tlavideo.com tlavideo.com] website lists 810 studios. (That includes "legitimate" studios as well as pornographic studios.) Obviously, we won't ever have 799 articles on studios; some of them made one or two films and folded.

I'm not known for my brevity, but I wanted to give a really complete reason for removing all the links. Thanks.—Chidom talk  16:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What Wikipedia is not

It seems that should be a list of studios that are important (or "notable", if you must) enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia, not just a list of studios because they are studios.

See Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm already maintaining the List of gay porn stars with regard to this; someone else will need to step up and "police" the list before the whole thing gets nominated for deletion.—Chidom talk  19:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qualifying studios

Hey all. I'm new to this end of the galaxy but I wanted to state that Keith Manheim Studios (KM Studios) has released at least five films so far. Another point of interest in this discussion might be that some of the studios already up there only have a single release. Now what qualifies a studio to be a studio? As a producer myself, it is a major achievements having found a distributor willing to distribute the DVDs you want to make, and after that a release-date schedule kicks in and movies get released on regular basis from that date.

Hope that gave some input into this endless talk about who is and who's not. Agustsmari 16:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi—and welcome. First, you had your post in the right place to start with—new posts go at the bottom of pages unless the page states otherwise.
As for studios that only have one film released, those studios—along with many of the other studios on the list—don't belong here—but I don't have time to go back and cull them.
A good way to begin editing at Wikipedia is to review the three content policies:
  1. Wikipedia:Verifiability
  2. Wikipedia:No original research
  3. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Other helpful information can be found in the articles below:
To try to summarize, here's things to consider before adding the name of a studio to this list:
  • The list itself should be a list of studios that need to have articles written about them, not just a list of studios
  • In order to warrant an article (and hence inclusion on the list), a studio needs to meet notability guidelines; the most common of which is that "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" (Wikipedia:Notability)
  • If an article is written, it must cite reliable sources for the information in the article—and they should include third-party sources, not just source published by the topic of the article itself
Quite recently, the article about Falcon Entertainment (Falcon Studios) was speedy-deleted. The major reason for the deletion was that there was no independently published information about the company cited as sources for the information in the article—only information from the company's website itself. (The discussion about deleting the article is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon Studios.)
As someone who worked very hard to find those references, I can tell you it wasn't easy, even for a studio that's been around for a very long time. A newly-formed studio with few releases is not likely to have much information about it available as a source of information for an article about the studio.
I hope this was informative even though I imagine this isn't the information you wanted to be given; the policies and guidelines wouldn't seem to support an article about the studio.
Thanks.—Chidom talk  05:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_pornographic_movie_studios_b7bf.html"