Talk:Bang Bros

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bang Bros article.
Article policies
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
Low rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale
Pornography Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on November 5, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Merging into "Bang Bus"

That does not make sense. The only reason why Bang Bros is a bigger and more complete article is because its subject - the Bang Bus section of Bang Bros. - was the first to be online (dating back to 2001, I guess). The success of Bang Bros. knowedly offsprung from Bang Bus, but today it is a "directory" that counts on likely more than 15 sites with different porn themes ( see Bang Bros. Network). I think, at most and instead, Bang Bus is the one that should be merged into Bang Bros. and this last one reorganized and improved to feature the other sites. Denis Mattos 05:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that bang bus should be merged in bang bros. The main site network should be keep, and not a single site article. --R2cyberpunk 16:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wtf ever happened to Backroom Facials?

whatever happened to Backroom Facials?

[edit] Unsourced material

I think it is in the best interest for this article to add an unreferenced tag to the article than to delete the majority of the article, half of which doesn't need a source such as the list of the websites on the network. Acidskater 02:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The removed material was unsourced for quite a long time. It cannot be added back until it can be sourced. Valrith 20:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
What kind of source do you want for the list of websites on the network? That needs NO source. And that wasn't the only edit I did, don't use a revert if there are other edits unless you can add what else was added!!!!!!Acidskater 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bangbros music group

I think the Bangbros link should redirect to a multiple meaning page, since Bangbros (without the space) is a European harddance act that is gaining popularity. Cwattengard 14:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  • If the act is notable enough for an article, then I agree. The article Bangbros (harddance) (or somesuch) should be created first, then Bangbros should be converted into a disambig page. Valrith 15:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there should at least be a disambiguation (which I could not be bothered to do ^_^), their site can be found at www.bangbros.biz 96.227.180.112 (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] add to article

should this article be expanded? they claim to be the most popular adult website online. --Keithkesslerexp (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added accurate information about the number of sites currently affiliated to the network, as well as a detailed list of those sites currently updated and those who are no longer updated. This information is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreutzenauer (talk • contribs) 12:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link

Should Wikipedia, one of the most visited site on the planet, be linking to the website? I am not a prude by any stretch, it just seems odd to me is all.Kaobear (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems appropriate for an article about a website to provide a link to that website. Take a look at any of the articles in Category:Websites. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:BangBus.jpg

The image Image:BangBus.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy about the list of affiliated sites

Kreutzenauer, first as an anonymous user, added accurate information about the number of sites affiliated and a list of which ones are currently updated, and which ones are no longer updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreutzenauer (talk • contribs) 12:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia is not a directory. There is no reason to provide an advertisement for a commercial network of adult websites. Interested readers can click through the link to the Bang Bros website and find the affiliate sites for themselves. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)