This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ikip (talk | contribs) at 05:40, 2 February 2010 (→Revision with red links removed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:40, 2 February 2010 by Ikip (talk | contribs) (→Revision with red links removed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present. |
RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source
 |
|
Is the Adam Gay Video Directory (in its various editions; eg. OCLC 422131336, OCLC 227972053, OCLC 38084116, OCLC 38083956) suitable as a reliable source to confirm inclusion of a pornography actor on the List of male performers in gay porn films? A significant number of entries rely on this catalogue as an independent source of information.—Ash (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have posted a notice of this discussion at WP:RSN. LadyofShalott 20:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- A request for closure by an independent editor has been posted at Editor assistance/Requests Ash (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Using a simple search on Google Books, I note that the following use this directory as a source and as the authors include well established academics I would recommend following their judgement:
- Kendall, Christopher N. (2005), Gay male pornography: an issue of sex discrimination, UBC Press, ISBN 9780774810777,
- LaGuardia, Cheryl; Katz, Bill; Katz, Linda Sternberg (2003), Magazines for Libraries (12 ed.), Bowker, ISBN 9780835245418
- Williams, Linda (2004), Porn studies, Duke University Press, ISBN 9780822333128
- Barnard, Ian (2004), Queer race: cultural interventions in the racial politics of queer theory, Peter Lang, p. 40, ISBN 9780820470887
- Hamamoto, Darrell Y.; Liu, Sandra (2000), Countervisions: Asian American film criticism, Temple University Press, ISBN 9781566397766
- —Ash (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest that if there are no objections raised within 7 days then WP:SILENCE applies.—Ash (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- —Ash (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- No evidence that anyone treats this publication as WP-reliable source for factual information. The citations provided show no more than that the publication is used to describe characteristics of the market, in the same way that Flat Earth journals may be cited to describe the beliefs of flat-earthers. Quoting reviews to demonstrate what is found appealing in the market is not the same as using the magazine as a source for factual information about living persons. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Making emotive comparisons to the beliefs of flat-earthers does not help validate your view. In direct contradiction to your statement are the real-world facts. I am looking right now at "Porn studies" and "Countervisions", they use the AGVD precisely for "a source for factual information about living persons", not just market characteristics (taking the example further, in "Porn Studies" p.233, Williams uses it as the only reliable source to define Brandon Lee as a porn star, which is the whole point of how the source is used in this article under discussion).—Ash (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment In what way is the Directory being used as a reliable source to confirm inclusion of a pornography actor on the List of male performers in gay porn films? Is it being used to verify credits for actors already deemed notable by other sources? That would seem fine. Or is it being used to establish notability for actors? In that case, what criteria does the book use for inclusion of videos/actors? If it's every man who's appeared in gay porn film, and/or every gay porn film, that would be much too broad a reference to use for notability. Also, is there any relation to the (I think now defunct) Adam Film World Video Directory? Шизомби (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- The AGVD has the same author and publisher as the AGWVD you refer to (see J. C. Adams). Though the publication you refer to may not be recently re-published, previous editions may still be suitable as a source for information. I agree with your note that appearance in such a directory does not necessarily demonstrate notability, the issue arose due to such footnotes being automatically deleted as an editor thought that it should be dismissed as a source.—Ash (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Besides the references above, J.C. Adams' "Adams Report" for radvideo.com and the AGVD were also cited in articles by Jeffrey Escoffier in the Journal of Homosexuality and Qualitative Sociology and in a paper for a Rutgers University sociology graduate student conference http://sociology.rutgers.edu/DOCUMENTS/conf_papers/Meunier_Etienne.pdf http://sociology.rutgers.edu/constructingknowledges.html. Language Log cites it but for other reasons. Pornography and Sexual Representation: A Reference Guide Volume II by Joseph W. Slade says "For information on currently popular directors, the scholar must consult Adult Film World and Adult Video News" (676) and "Adult Film World directories of heterosexual and gay films are also useful" (670). This is going a bit afield, but kind of interesting, regarding the eight member ("Uh huh huh huh") Resale Activities Board of Review of the United States Department of Defense created by Rep. Paul Broun's Military Honor and Decency Act, "Anti-porn groups decry exchange sale policy" http://www.navytimes.com/benefits/stores/military_magazines_070911w/ it had found the Adam Film Guide and Adam Gay Video to be sexually explicit http://prhome.defense.gov/docs/DoD%20Resale%20Activities%20Board%20of%20Review%20Recommendations.pdf See also here http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/resaleboard1.html (not the most reliable site, admittedly). I'm not really sure why the Pentagon thought a review board to review pornography to determine if it is pornography was (1) a good idea (2) a good use of money and manpower. It's also curious that Adam Gay Video, Lesbian Licks, Lesbian Letters, etc. had apparently been being sold in military exchange services, commissaries and U.S. Navy ships' stores up until that point. And a queer horror movie like "Curse of the Queerwolf" was determined not to be sexually explicit and thus OK to keep selling to the military. The reviewal process is further rendered silly by the fact that the stores were asked to submit for review material they were selling that they thought was pornographic. So pornography, that had been determined to be pornography, was then determined to be pornography. I wonder if they read and watch things all the way through? Together or separately? Single-sex or co-ed board? Шизомби (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Globalizing effort
Just a note that we remain US-centric but there are Category:Pornographic film awards that are international. Most do not seem to cover gay content but some do. -- Banjeboi 14:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Spot check of link clean-up
I've just spot-checked the "S" section. The disambiguation of links (which is presumably to avoid inadvertently linking to the wrong person) seems to have been ignored. There is also a link to a disambiguation page remaining, and a person has been left on the list with no reference, although there is a {citation} tag. Clearly, if there is no source for including someone on this list, they should be removed per WP:BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I just went back through "S", made one wlink a redlink, as it had linked to a DAB page with no correct entry, and deleted another name as there was no apparent indication of gay porn. Cheers, Lindsay 19:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, LindsayH, but my intention wasn't to show two specific links that I would have fixed myself under different circumstances, it was to highlight potential issues with the link clean-up. I picked the letter "S" more or less at random. There may be similar links in other sections. The issue of disambiguating links seems to have been ignored entirely in this section and likely others, although it was part of the outline of what would be addressed. Perhaps a second pass of each section by different editors would prove helpful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Or you could simply stop directing other volunteers what to do and simply list any links that likely should be fixed. This seems like a passive aggressive insult as to the quality of my editing as I edited that section and you clearly know that. Instead of simply stating I think it's time to remove that one as unsourced and by the way this one points to a disambiguation page you chose to turn it into harassment 2.0. Based on your history here it would be likely better to move along rather than restir up more problems. Constructive suggestions that don't take digs at editors including myself are certainly welcome but more needless drama is not. -- Banjeboi 04:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Benjiboi, please read through my comments again. You will see that I didn't mention your name nor did I attempt to find fault for not having followed through on the disambiguation of links. Rather than responding with insinuations and personal attacks, perhaps you could actually take my feedback at face value? Is your goal here to improve this article or to simply react negatively whatever I say? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- The general sum total of your efforts in this entire subject area has been to delete, disparage and disrupt. Assume good faith is not a suicide pact and I suggest you find more constructive areas where actual BLP certainly do exist if your feel that is your forte. Your personal campaign and wikihounding is completely unhelpful and increasingly misguided. Even asking if my goal is to improve this list is quite insulting and if you do not see that likely should take a break and think about what Misplaced Pages's goals are and how you intend to abide by them including dealing with other editors. In my book you've done nothing but stirred up drama and disruption repeatedly and needlessly. Please leave me alone and stop following my editing. -- Banjeboi 04:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I find your accusations tiresome and they are beginning to get less and less rooted in anything that is being said here. Perhaps it would be better for everyone if you let someone else reply to my comments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, i took DC's initial statement as an indication that something was still lacking in "S" so, after realising that he must have a different editing philosophy to mine, i went looking through the letter to see what i could find (cleverly, i didn't notice the wlinks in the comment till after i had finished) and fix. I'm a little confused, though, DC: Are you suggesting that every entry ought to have a (pornographic actor) DAB? Because i don't think that was implied originally, nor would it be necessary; if i'm misinterpreting, i apologise. The other alternative is that Banjeboi or Doc or whoever simply missed Scott Russell on their first pass through, isn't it? Cheers, Lindsay 20:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I took "If no article exists please add a disambiguation like Adam Foo (actor) so we know that no article exists" to mean that all red links should be to links of a form similar to Actor Name (pornographic actor) so that there was less chance of repeating the accidental linking to articles that were not about porn performers. As Benjiboi points out in the Article names discussion above, some people may be better known for other activities, but for red links this form seems most appropriate. My other point was that if things were accidentally missed in one section, they may have been similarly missed in others. My suggestion is simply to do a second pass, which should be fairly quick, with editors picking sections that were originally cleaned by someone else. I wasn't implying that anyone deliberately left that incorrect link at Scott Russell and I'm truly at a loss to understand how my comments here can be taken as disruptive, but I'm getting used to that. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, i took DC's initial statement as an indication that something was still lacking in "S" so, after realising that he must have a different editing philosophy to mine, i went looking through the letter to see what i could find (cleverly, i didn't notice the wlinks in the comment till after i had finished) and fix. I'm a little confused, though, DC: Are you suggesting that every entry ought to have a (pornographic actor) DAB? Because i don't think that was implied originally, nor would it be necessary; if i'm misinterpreting, i apologise. The other alternative is that Banjeboi or Doc or whoever simply missed Scott Russell on their first pass through, isn't it? Cheers, Lindsay 20:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I find your accusations tiresome and they are beginning to get less and less rooted in anything that is being said here. Perhaps it would be better for everyone if you let someone else reply to my comments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- The general sum total of your efforts in this entire subject area has been to delete, disparage and disrupt. Assume good faith is not a suicide pact and I suggest you find more constructive areas where actual BLP certainly do exist if your feel that is your forte. Your personal campaign and wikihounding is completely unhelpful and increasingly misguided. Even asking if my goal is to improve this list is quite insulting and if you do not see that likely should take a break and think about what Misplaced Pages's goals are and how you intend to abide by them including dealing with other editors. In my book you've done nothing but stirred up drama and disruption repeatedly and needlessly. Please leave me alone and stop following my editing. -- Banjeboi 04:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Benjiboi, please read through my comments again. You will see that I didn't mention your name nor did I attempt to find fault for not having followed through on the disambiguation of links. Rather than responding with insinuations and personal attacks, perhaps you could actually take my feedback at face value? Is your goal here to improve this article or to simply react negatively whatever I say? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Or you could simply stop directing other volunteers what to do and simply list any links that likely should be fixed. This seems like a passive aggressive insult as to the quality of my editing as I edited that section and you clearly know that. Instead of simply stating I think it's time to remove that one as unsourced and by the way this one points to a disambiguation page you chose to turn it into harassment 2.0. Based on your history here it would be likely better to move along rather than restir up more problems. Constructive suggestions that don't take digs at editors including myself are certainly welcome but more needless drama is not. -- Banjeboi 04:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, LindsayH, but my intention wasn't to show two specific links that I would have fixed myself under different circumstances, it was to highlight potential issues with the link clean-up. I picked the letter "S" more or less at random. There may be similar links in other sections. The issue of disambiguating links seems to have been ignored entirely in this section and likely others, although it was part of the outline of what would be addressed. Perhaps a second pass of each section by different editors would prove helpful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Outdent. Actually that's rather the opposite. We only disambiguate as neeeded. If there are no other articles by the same name there remains no reason to disambiguate at all. If there is another article by the same name then determining what the person is best known for (actor, entrepreneur, director, etc.) will guide as to the best disambiguation. As for your comments here, you chose to cage it about the contributor instead of just the content. Coupled with your history here and seeming eagerness to take digs at me as well as deleting content on gay pornography actors applying Occum's razor gives us the most likely reasoning. That you are bewildered that your actions are seen as disruptive suggests WP:Competent applies as well. -- Banjeboi 14:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Completely wrong and highly irresponsible, so far as redlinks go. As I pointed out in the related AN discussion, redlinking a name without disambiguation spawns BLP violations if an article is created for a different person with the same name -- and there are typically no less notable people sharing names with the redlinks on the list that aren't disambiguated. It's bad practice generally to lace a list with redlinks, particularly a list that requires particular scrutiny under BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- We don't corrupt redlinks to avoid hypothetical articles. If and when an article is created that points to the wrong person we simply follow the same disambiguation protocols for any other article. And every BLP listed on any article is under the same BLP scrutiny. We apply the same standard everywhere - not lighter or heavier in certain areas. -- Banjeboi 21:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Major BLP issue
- I cut some links to Ben Andrews. Someone named Ben seems to have appeared in a few porn vids, and someone else named Ben ran in an election in Ontario, while yet some other Ben is good at maths and won an Aussie medal of some sort. Linking to an unqualified common name that already has extant links targeting is Highly Inappropriate when the subject matter of the article could have an adverse impact on some person. This same thing happened with Parker Williams; (and more). And Benjiboi has restored this BLP problem.
- So, do not redlink to names without using a (pornographic actor) parenthetical suffix; any such links should be removed and a good criteria is to look to see if something is already targeting the red title. For an obviously common name such as Ben Andrews it's a no brainer: qualify the title
- Sincerely, Jack Merridew 07:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- General comment/advice to DC and Ben (feel free to ignore, it's worth what you paid for it). Ben, when DC _is_ doing something helpful for the article/topic it's probably best just to say "thank you" even if you believe he has less-than-clean motivations. DC: it would be _more_ helpful if you fixed problems you find (that you know all would agree are problems) rather than seeming to direct others and criticize. If in doubt about it being an acceptable-to-all edit, providing wikicode as a suggested replacement might work. In any case, I'm glad to see everyone is working together, however begrudgingly, to fix this article up. Ben's done a great job, but it's huge and needs a lot of eyes! Best of luck. Hobit (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't get the feeling that everyone is working together and I'm not sure why you do. If I thought I could make any edits here without being reverted and receiving a fresh round of accusations, I would. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know. But the article is improving, so the net effect is positive. If you feel you can't make edits, I'd suggest you propose edits here (including wiki code so it can be easily changed/inserted) and allow discussion. I think we all agree that removing BLP problems is important here, we just disagree about what makes for a BLP problem. If people try to get along as people, even if they disagree on the material, things will improve much more quickly. Hobit (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't get the feeling that everyone is working together and I'm not sure why you do. If I thought I could make any edits here without being reverted and receiving a fresh round of accusations, I would. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
How should IMDB links be handled for this list?
As I understand it, IMDB is not considered a reliable source, however is legitimately used for general information on an actor (e.g. co-actors in a film, film dates and for showing which films an actor has appeared in) but is considered unreliable for biographical data (e.g. birth dates, family details), see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 40#IMDB, again for an associated discussion. My example is Adam Wilde at IMDb which has been recently deleted from the article on the assumption that it was included to justify alternative names of Adam Wilde, however the footnote seems reasonable to keep as a source of films he has appeared in. Does this need an RfC to reach a consensus on how they could be used?—Ash (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- All the IMDB's IMHO, should likely be bolstered as they can be helpful for those wanting to see a full filmography which this list certainly won't house. That site isn't RS for defining those tricky, especially BLP issues like date of birth etc. - but it can be useful to show an actor has been in say 43 films vs. 5 and giving information that may help those looking for more. For instance, we need a better source for a.k.a.'s but at least knowing what some of them are helps us find the others. -- Banjeboi 14:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Removed for now - borderline
- Cort Stevens a.k.a. Chris Burns - An American gay pornographic actor and model active from 1994-mid 2000s.
- This one needs more research, there is plenty of reliable sources including (Vulgar favors: Andrew Cunanan, Gianni Versace, and the largest failed manhunt in U.S. history (1999), Maureen Orth, Delacorte Press, ISBN 0385332866, 9780385332866) but they borderline GNG presently. There's a reasonable chance an award or two will show up but for now it's not clear they meet WP:Pornbio or WP:GNG. -- Banjeboi 14:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Tony Capucci
OK, here's the story: Tony Capucci was nominated for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tony Capucci. The decision was to redirect to the current page. Then a DRV was started at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 2. I closed it with the result "overturn and delete". My rationale is given on the DRV page; basically, according to WP:SALAT, this list should not contain his name, so under the assumption that he is not in the list obviously the redirect should be deleted. However, User:Hobit commented on my talk page about the decision, and we've agreed that a discussion here would be the best. The question is: Should Capucci be included in this list? Note that it has already been decided in the AfD that he should not have an article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Include, on the basis of the sources raised in the AfD discussion. He has a significant gay porn filming record with Falcon Studios and I would have thought the fact that he was filming with Sacha Baron Cohen makes him notable and interesting enough for this list.—Ash (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- But SALAT says, "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Misplaced Pages articles." I'm fine with having an article on him, thus having him in the list as well. The AfD says otherwise, however (if sufficient reliable sources can be found, the decision can be overridden of course). But if as of now, since he doesn't have an article, he doesn't belong in the list. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm fairly mellow on this, but my one comment is that that guideline is often unobserved. I've looked for lists of people and not found one with more than 20 entries that are all blue links. That said, it _is_ the guideline and has been for a long while, so following it should be the default unless there is good reason not to. No opinion if Ash's comments above are enough to overcome that default or not... Hobit (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- If the guideline is supposed to be ignored arbitrarily, then we should get rid of it. If the guideline is supposed to be ignored for specific reasons, then we should come up with exceptions to add to the guideline. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree in principle, but let's look at the first three featured lists of people. has a massive number of black links. has none. has a red link. If the featured articles of this type commonly ignore the guideline, don't you think there should be some wiggle room for other articles? Again, I'm not taking a stand as to if he should be deleted or not--I honestly think the arguments to keep and delete it here are quite weak. I'm just saying WP:SALAT is ignored often enough, even in featured lists, that it shouldn't be treated as an absolute bar to having black/red links here. Hobit (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Red links exist to encourage people to write articles on subjects that are likely to be notable. We had an AfD, consensus was that Capuci wasn't notable, why have them in the list at all? Why have anyone in this list who doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO? Take a look at List of female porn stars by decade. It doesn't have any red links or any unlinked entries, and it doesn't suffer from the same sourcing and BLP issues that have had this article up for deletion several times and just got a similar list deleted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- And the one that's about half black links? Should those be removed? There is almost no likelihood of the vast majority of those having articles due to not meeting WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Being picked at the bottom of the draft!= notability. Hobit (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know which article you are talking about. My comments relate to this article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- And my comments relate to the featured list article mentioned above. Sorry if I was unclear. Hobit (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- My comments relate to this article, which deals with gay porn performers, not athletes. The concerns are not equivalent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- The argument put forward is WP:SALAT which applies equally to both. That's actually all I'm commenting on. I don't see significant BLP issues with keeping the red/black links, but nor do I see any pressing need to have them. I do however believe that if folks are on this list, there should be redirects pointing to here when articles don't exist. Just as WP:REDIRECT would indicate and is standard. Hobit (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- If people are on this list, they should have an article, so a redirect is not necessary. If people do not have an article, they should not be on this list. With that out pf the way, would you object if I remove all red and black links now? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think there is consensus for such a change, nor do I think it's needed. But as noted, I don't personally think it matters either way. So you'll have to work it out with others. I just swung by to comment on SALAT and WP:RELIST. Hobit (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- If people are on this list, they should have an article, so a redirect is not necessary. If people do not have an article, they should not be on this list. With that out pf the way, would you object if I remove all red and black links now? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- The argument put forward is WP:SALAT which applies equally to both. That's actually all I'm commenting on. I don't see significant BLP issues with keeping the red/black links, but nor do I see any pressing need to have them. I do however believe that if folks are on this list, there should be redirects pointing to here when articles don't exist. Just as WP:REDIRECT would indicate and is standard. Hobit (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- My comments relate to this article, which deals with gay porn performers, not athletes. The concerns are not equivalent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- And my comments relate to the featured list article mentioned above. Sorry if I was unclear. Hobit (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know which article you are talking about. My comments relate to this article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- And the one that's about half black links? Should those be removed? There is almost no likelihood of the vast majority of those having articles due to not meeting WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Being picked at the bottom of the draft!= notability. Hobit (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Red links exist to encourage people to write articles on subjects that are likely to be notable. We had an AfD, consensus was that Capuci wasn't notable, why have them in the list at all? Why have anyone in this list who doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO? Take a look at List of female porn stars by decade. It doesn't have any red links or any unlinked entries, and it doesn't suffer from the same sourcing and BLP issues that have had this article up for deletion several times and just got a similar list deleted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree in principle, but let's look at the first three featured lists of people. has a massive number of black links. has none. has a red link. If the featured articles of this type commonly ignore the guideline, don't you think there should be some wiggle room for other articles? Again, I'm not taking a stand as to if he should be deleted or not--I honestly think the arguments to keep and delete it here are quite weak. I'm just saying WP:SALAT is ignored often enough, even in featured lists, that it shouldn't be treated as an absolute bar to having black/red links here. Hobit (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- If the guideline is supposed to be ignored arbitrarily, then we should get rid of it. If the guideline is supposed to be ignored for specific reasons, then we should come up with exceptions to add to the guideline. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Using the GOOGLETEST, Tony Capucci seems oddly notable considering the AfD recommended deletion. I count 10/10 matches on the first search page being for this porn star, in some form or the other, rather than any other guy. For most AfD discussions this would indicate a good expectation that notability can be justified even if sources found by current editors are not yet sufficient.—Ash (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposal:Remove red link entries
I proposed this in the AfD, and my opinion is still the same. I think all red-link entries in this list should be removed not only for BLP concerns but also to have a more discriminatory list. When dealing with a matter as sensitive as this we have to take extreme caution when listing names and we must back up these names with more than a mention or an award.
For example, suppose my name is Joe Romero (sharing with a red-link entry on this list). I'm just an average guy with an average life. With what is written in this article, how could any acquaintance, job interviewer, etcetra not know that I am the Joe Romero who won "Best oral scene" at the Gay Erotic Video Awards? If my name was Steve Cruz (sharing with a blue-link entry) I would be in the clear because the Steve Cruz on this list has an article mentioning that he was born in 1972, is 5'5/145, and is working for Raging Stallion Studios. There's more than enough information given to avoid BLP problems from both the Steve Cruz we mention and the other Steve Cruz's in the world.
Entries without blue links are a focal point for controversy and are not appropriate per our BLP policy, and I propose that they are removed, preserving the notable blue-link entries. Afterwards, the list would be kept clean of red-links through constant editing. ThemFromSpace 09:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Does your statement mean that you would not have a problem with an entry if it was dis-ambiguous?—Ash (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which redlinks are disambiguous. Can you give me an example of one? A link to a guys picture or background history would probably be ok, but so far I'm just seeing links to lists of award-winners. Having a name cited as an award winner without any other information about him is really contentious. ThemFromSpace 09:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- The example of Tony Capucci above is probably a good one. Using the googletest there does not appear to be any other notable Tony Capucci that would be confused with this porn star. In this case a link to the newspaper article about being cast in Cohen's film and a link to an index of porn film credits seems unambiguous. If there were some other Tony Capucci that were non-notable then in the Misplaced Pages sense there is no confusion as Misplaced Pages does not have articles for non-notable people. If you really wanted to ensure no future confusion you would link to Tony Capucci (porn star).
- Before getting too bogged down, the point I'm making is that if there is a consensus to enforce the removal of red links from this list (as discussed before, a rule not enforced for all featured lists) then the rationale would not be purely on the basis of disambiguation (or even the absence of a WP article as this is not a confirmation of non-notability). As there are always exceptions to WP guidance, perhaps we need a formal wider RfC to get a credible current consensus on the issue of red-links specifically for this list?—Ash (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Your suggestion is both sensible and unrealistic. During an alleged 5 month clean-up between AfDs, it wasn't done. In the most recent clean-up prompted by the most recent AfD, it was discussed, agreed to, and still not done. Even if it were to be completed now, there is no reason to expect that any future red links will be added in the correct format. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Considering your earlier comment history, I'm unclear which suggestion you are responding to. I thought you were making a statement against the proposal of removing redlinks but you've said the exact opposite in the previous section and below.—Ash (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Your suggestion is both sensible and unrealistic. During an alleged 5 month clean-up between AfDs, it wasn't done. In the most recent clean-up prompted by the most recent AfD, it was discussed, agreed to, and still not done. Even if it were to be completed now, there is no reason to expect that any future red links will be added in the correct format. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which redlinks are disambiguous. Can you give me an example of one? A link to a guys picture or background history would probably be ok, but so far I'm just seeing links to lists of award-winners. Having a name cited as an award winner without any other information about him is really contentious. ThemFromSpace 09:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support - thank you for following up from the AfD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Would anybody object if I went ahead and removed these? Given the nature of the previous AfD I'm surprised this proposal hasn't recieved more attention. ThemFromSpace 01:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I still do as was spelled out previously. This is a BLP issue, we don't want want the wrong wikilinks re-added again as happens on a regular basis and we want a clear picture of the gaps in our coverage in this area. This is the _only_ list covering this area and is still being overhauled from six months ago. In that time we've gone from just a list of names to start to clarify why someone would be considered notable. We are not in a rush but meanwhile we should work to ensure that if someone wants to start an article it is at least at the right title and no longer points to someone else. Addressing the hyped fear that someone with an identical name would have an article written about them is still an easy issue to address - we simply disambiguate one or both article titles. We do this all the time and it's considered pretty common editing practice. As pointed out previously this article is at the intersection of two areas that remain in flux - how to best present lists in areas of culturally taboo areas and what should be the standards of notability for pornographic entertainers. These decisions should not be solely addressed on a localized list level but this list can evolve into demonstrating how a list in a taboo area can still be a good and encyclopedic article and serve our readers. -- Banjeboi 15:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Given the support for the removal of red links expressed by several editors in the most recent AfD and the paucity of significant objection here, as well as the lack of progress in cleaning up the article, I'm going to start removing red links. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- In what way is your unilateral statement a consensus? You could raise a wider RfC rather than assuming SILENCE applies due to a lack of response on this talk page.Ash (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think common sense and WP:BOLD should be applied here. Reds add nothing to lists and seem distract from real information. raseaC 21:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Are you arguing that BOLD means there is no need for a consensus? Ash (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think an RfC is in order. Although that might be odd because this article is already under an RfC. ThemFromSpace 22:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Are you arguing that BOLD means there is no need for a consensus? Ash (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't assuming that silence equals consensus, but my reading of the comments in the AfD is that it removal of red links was fairly widely supported even if those editors did not express their opinion here. We are unlikely to be able to address any of the sourcing and other issues so long as the page is so large and unwieldy.
Ash, you have stated that you have no strong opinion about removal of red links, so your objections seem somewhat obstructionist at this point.Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think common sense and WP:BOLD should be applied here. Reds add nothing to lists and seem distract from real information. raseaC 21:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delicious carbuncle, I do apologise for expressing an opinion that differs from yours. I did not understand that this constitutes being "obstructionist", I guess most other wikipedians automatically defer to your wisdom. Perhaps you could supply a diff for where I state that I "have no strong opinion about removal of red links", at the moment all I can see of my comments are requests for a consensus and two suggestions that an RfC might be appropriate. Perhaps you believe that a AfD discussion is a healthy substitute for an RfC? Ash (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies, I was confusing you with user:Hobit and have struck the remark. Please drop the sarcastic tone. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Understood, </sarcastic>. Ash (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies, I was confusing you with user:Hobit and have struck the remark. Please drop the sarcastic tone. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delicious carbuncle, I do apologise for expressing an opinion that differs from yours. I did not understand that this constitutes being "obstructionist", I guess most other wikipedians automatically defer to your wisdom. Perhaps you could supply a diff for where I state that I "have no strong opinion about removal of red links", at the moment all I can see of my comments are requests for a consensus and two suggestions that an RfC might be appropriate. Perhaps you believe that a AfD discussion is a healthy substitute for an RfC? Ash (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Ash: yes. Themfromspace: why not go ahead and let the current RfC run its course and then if someone wants to start another arguing for the inclusion of vast, pointless lists then let them? raseaC 22:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Cool, I guess that means that we can look forward to editors reverting each other BOLD-ly and then trying to reach a consensus when that fails. Ash (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support themfromspace's proposal.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Still oppose. Despite the unique and novel interpretation by a few editors the entries recently removed, and reverted actually meet Misplaced Pages's notability inclusion for pornographic performers. That they systematically target this content to remove content and delete articles then have the nerve to suggest that even a mention of these performers needs to be removed is ridiculous. This is the only list for performers in gay male pornography and removing red-linked entries compromises Misplaced Pages's coverage in this area. The deletion discussion was sadly over-inflated with non-concerns about a wikilink going to the wrong article - that was the point of the whole arm-flailing tour from one admin board to the next - and thus several other editors worked through each entry to ensure that wikilinks went to the correct article or were disambiguated so as to help ensure if someone used a redlink here to create an article it would already be disambiguated to distinguish from other biographies whether BLP or someone who had died. No, I'm afraid this fails the duck test as just editors trying to delete information because they don't like it. Do we really have to change the article title to state and also those who have won major porn awards or are otherwise notable by Misplaced Pages's guidelines in this area? I hope not. -- Banjeboi 11:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Benjiboi, you continually show yourself to be insensitive to the concerns about BLPs that are not only shared by most other editors, but articulated in policy. You have singlehandedly stonewalled any progress here despite numerous editors (including admins) stating that the red links should go. The previous AfDs and this thread at WP:AN should suffice if you're looking for examples. There's a very simple solution to your concern about - create stubs for any notable performers, including references (which are already in this article, so it should be quite easy). Perhaps your comrades at the "Article Rescue Squadron" would help you get this done? In the meantime, I will proceed with removing red links. Please act by creating the desired stubs and not simply reverting. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- DC - why are you against raising a specific RfC in order to have a clear consensus on this point of blanket deleting all red-links on this list rather than just assuming you must represent consensus? As far as I can see nobody has pointed to a prior specific consensus building discussion, perhaps this is a good time to start. Ash (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I can see you've blanket deleted rather than discussing any further or trying an RfC. I guess you feel building consensus isn't that important here. Ash (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't see your earlier comment - the article is so long that edits take quite a while to process. I have offered a simple solution for Benjiboi's concern and not for the first time. It is not clear to me why they (or you) do not simply start creating properly sourced stubs for any notable gay porn performers. As for consensus, I feel it has been amply established in the previous discussions I have already linked. I doubt any amount of discussion will change Benjiboi's opinions or ownership of this article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I can see you've blanket deleted rather than discussing any further or trying an RfC. I guess you feel building consensus isn't that important here. Ash (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delicious carbuncle, you have continually heightened all issues - whether relevant or not - to a BLP flailing and alarmist level while showing insensitivity to common sense and consensus of other editors. This is simply disruptive and unhelpful. The best alarmist case you had going was that a wikilink on this list might lead to a BLP of someone who is both alive and not a pornographic actor. Allegations that Misplaced Pages fielded complaints along these lines were made but despite numerous requests for any evidence or simply a rough estimate of how many of these complaints ever came in, no meaningful data was ever presented. Despite this a group of editors worked through every entry on this list to address this possible concern. To accidentally wikilink the wrong article sems liek aa borderline issue but remains something that is easily foixable by simply disambiguating the wikilink. Which was done. Then you spiraled into the absurd deleting (or proposing to delete) articles on subjects who were quickly shown to be notable. Nothing was shown to be a BLP issue there as reliable sources revealed the names of those performers not us and little if any of the information we had was evidenced as untrue - which is what BLP is about. As you have now shown this has much more to do with your interest in deletion rather than actually improving content please follow the policies regarding lists and consensus. Harassing myself and referring to those at the Article Rescue Squad as "my comrades" suggests you are simply following the tin hat crowd at Misplaced Pages Review again, if not leading. That site has been organizing all manner of harassment and nonsense and likely those editors who are enabling banned and blocked editors should all be shown the door as bullies are detrimental to building quality content. Your involvement on this article has been an exercise in drama over the past few months and this seems more evidence of you stirring up the next round of concern building a mountain out of a molehill when all concerned could actually be doing much more constructive work than trying to appease your skewed views that even notable subjects who should have an article must be removed.There is simply no reason except You Don't Like It. -- Banjeboi 15:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Most of what you have written here is simply nonsense and unrelated to my actual words or actions so I won't be responding to it. If I am so strongly opposed to articles on gay porn performers, why am I suggesting that still more articles be created? Please stop edit-warring over these changes. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- You have taken actions here designed solely to provoke so please don't take others here as fools. You are the one removing sourced content against consensus. Please cease and desist. -- Banjeboi 16:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Most of what you have written here is simply nonsense and unrelated to my actual words or actions so I won't be responding to it. If I am so strongly opposed to articles on gay porn performers, why am I suggesting that still more articles be created? Please stop edit-warring over these changes. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- DC - why are you against raising a specific RfC in order to have a clear consensus on this point of blanket deleting all red-links on this list rather than just assuming you must represent consensus? As far as I can see nobody has pointed to a prior specific consensus building discussion, perhaps this is a good time to start. Ash (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Benjiboi, you continually show yourself to be insensitive to the concerns about BLPs that are not only shared by most other editors, but articulated in policy. You have singlehandedly stonewalled any progress here despite numerous editors (including admins) stating that the red links should go. The previous AfDs and this thread at WP:AN should suffice if you're looking for examples. There's a very simple solution to your concern about - create stubs for any notable performers, including references (which are already in this article, so it should be quite easy). Perhaps your comrades at the "Article Rescue Squadron" would help you get this done? In the meantime, I will proceed with removing red links. Please act by creating the desired stubs and not simply reverting. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
RfC: Should redlinked entries be removed?
|
|
Should the redlink entries in this article be removed? The relevant background discussion can be found above and at the article's latest AfD. ThemFromSpace 16:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- A diff with the redlinks included may be seen here and a diff with the redlinks removed may be seen here. ThemFromSpace 03:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, though they may be renamed to be unique. The issue with complying with REDLINK is accidentally linking to someone with the same name when such an article is newly created. Using a suffix "(porn film actor)", or equivalent, will ensure unique future-proof disambiguation (e.g. John Smith (porn film actor)). REDLINK encourages retaining such links where new articles may be created; this list is an ideal way to get such stubs started. Ash (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- yes If this list can persist at all, this should at minimum be a list of notable performs in these pornos -- not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of everyone that appeared in some flavor of porn or other. As a minimum, they should be the sorts of people notable enough (in the wp sense) to sustain an article.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes per BLP issues, and because this shouldn't be an indiscriminate list of every gay-porn star. Epbr123 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, as above. This is looking much better and I'll take a look and the broken cite mess in a sec. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- ABSOLUTELY NOT anyone care to cite policy about this? There is none. Each one of those entries has a reference, there is no requirement that there must be an article for each red link. Absolutely none. The AFD closing admin mentioned nothing about red links, it was just a couple of dissatisfied editors who did, and, as the AFD states, the proportion to keep was 75% (2/3rds) If these complaining editors don't like current red link policy, change it elsewhere first. Ikip 01:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- No You can't remove links just because of appearance. And just because no one has made an article for those things, doesn't mean they aren't notable. Does every award winning porn star have their own article, even if considered notable? Does every porn star who has done a major role in multiple notable films, have their own article? There are references for information being erased as well. Dream Focus 02:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe - it's not whether the link is red or not, it's whether it's established that the person is a gay male who is a porn star, using reliable sourcing. If that is established (with a satisfactory citation of a reliable source) the link can stay (subject only to other considerations of how likely it is that we will ever have an article on that person, which is driven by our best guess at notability) but if not, it's a BLP policy violation to include information that may well be considered deleterious or harmful, especially in a list. That's not subject to local consensus. ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Lar, the list is of male performers in gay porn films, not gay male performers in porn films. The performers do not have to be gay to be in the list, just so long as they are male and appear in gay porn (and not necessarily in a sexual role). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. That's a point of confusion for others and I shouldn't have made that mistake. My point still stands though... it's the same point I think you and others were making above, that any possibility of misidentification is a possibility of harm to a BLP victim. Even one such possibility is one too many. So if it's not a sourced redlink or if the link is one that might possibly be confusing as to who was referred to, it should be removed. ++Lar: t/c 05:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Then we should be debating the references, not the red links. I agree with Lar, it is all about the reliable sources. I haven't examined the sources, because, I am really not that interested in this subject. I am afraid of a goate(sp?) type pic greeting me... Ikip 05:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. That's a point of confusion for others and I shouldn't have made that mistake. My point still stands though... it's the same point I think you and others were making above, that any possibility of misidentification is a possibility of harm to a BLP victim. Even one such possibility is one too many. So if it's not a sourced redlink or if the link is one that might possibly be confusing as to who was referred to, it should be removed. ++Lar: t/c 05:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Lar, the list is of male performers in gay porn films, not gay male performers in porn films. The performers do not have to be gay to be in the list, just so long as they are male and appear in gay porn (and not necessarily in a sexual role). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Revision with red links removed
Here is a revision of the article with the red links removed. It would nice if everyone could leave it alone for long enough for the bot to repair the broken references. That will give us a point to work from should anyone ever choose to look at cleaning up the sourcing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- To all of the parties here, please don't edit war over this material. Currently I don't see much of a consensus for any large scale editing with regards to this article, which is why I threw up an RfC. Them From Space 16:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- The bot has done its thing - this is now the version that should be used as a baseline. Now that that is done, if anyone wants to revert my changes, I won't agree with your actions, but neither will I revert you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- As I just commented in the above section, this is looking up. The bot left some broken cites, no? Off to look. Good job, Jack Merridew 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delicious carbuncle, shouldn't you wait for the results of the RFC first? Especially since you have absolutely no policy to back up your opinion. Ikip 01:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- WP:BLP, Ikip. Most of those redlinks would be living people. Jack Merridew 02:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
In general, we don't remove redlinks if there is a chance that there will be articles about the link target. I was just talking with someone about this on my talk page. (see User:Lar#WP:REDLINK & the bounds of a BLP article ). However in this case, as with other lists where inclusion might be considered derogatory to the subject, if there is no source for the information, removal is warranted. This is a huge list, to be sure, but that's not a waiver. Each and every name on the list needs to be sourced, or it is subject to removal under WP:BLP policy. Edit warring to preserve BLP violating material is not allowed, and this is not a matter for local consensus to decide. If that's not sufficient, this matter needs to be referred to the BLP noticeboard. ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, I've requested that this page be protected due to the edit warring. I'll let the protecting admin decide for himself which "wrong version" to protect. Them From Space 02:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Derogatory? Confusing someone with a homosexual might be derogatory, or with someone who does pornography for a living? How about we just change the links so that (pornographic actor) is added to it? Would that solve this problem? And why not just remove the links, instead of mass deleting a large chunk of information, about people who are sourced as having won a notable award, such as the GayVN Awards? Dream Focus 02:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- It might be useful to look at List of pornographic actresses by decade which is the closest equivalent article for female performers. There are no red links and any attempts to add a red link to that list will be quickly rebuffed. All sourcing is in the articles themselves, not in the list, which seems entirely more appropriate and is much easier to maintain. I have suggested that stubs be created for any notable male performers rather than continuing this debate over red links, but no one seems to be interested in doing that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- "There are no red links and any attempts to add a red link to that list will be quickly rebuffed"
- No discussion on the talk page about red links.
- As far as I can see, all red links removed on that page have no sources, which is the difference here.
- I see a lot of red links are deleted after they fail AFDs are deleted for other reasons...which I would support here too.
- Bottom line is that there is no guideline or policy which states sourced red links should be deleted. Ikip 05:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- It might be useful to look at List of pornographic actresses by decade which is the closest equivalent article for female performers. There are no red links and any attempts to add a red link to that list will be quickly rebuffed. All sourcing is in the articles themselves, not in the list, which seems entirely more appropriate and is much easier to maintain. I have suggested that stubs be created for any notable male performers rather than continuing this debate over red links, but no one seems to be interested in doing that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- There are “sources” on a lot of that redink, but they're terrible sources. Further, absent any actual article that firmly nails down just who is being labeled as a performer in these porn vids, inclusion in this list can be seen as casting an aspersion on anyone sharing the name. There are many names that are quite common and even some that are just single names; 'Roger' comes to mind from a few months ago. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest we talk about the "terrible sources" I will support the deletion of names which have terrible sources. Ikip 05:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Protected
I've put full protection on this article for three days. AniMate 03:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- shocked, simply shocked at what version it was saved at :) Ikip 05:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- WikiProject Index articles
- List-Class biography articles
- List-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- List-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- List-Class Pornography articles
- Mid-importance Pornography articles
- List-Class Mid-importance Pornography articles
- WikiProject Pornography articles
- Misplaced Pages requests for comment