User talk:Dekkappai/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Sakura Sakurada 2 Hina Kawai 3 Derek 4 Go, Go Second Time Virgin 5 Maria Ozawa 6 Fair Use Images and J-Porn 7 Images tagged for deletion 8 Giichi Nishihara 9 DYK 10 2 quick points 11 My RfA 12 Creative Commons licensed pictures of Japanese stars 13 Assessment 14 Sukeban reference 15 AV Idols Template 16 Requesting free images

[edit] Sakura Sakurada

Before panicking, let's see if the deleting admin will agree to a restore, and at least an AfD debate. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Restored, but with probable AfD impending. Good luck. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, AnonEMouse. I'll prepare for an AfD. Dekkappai 21:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hina Kawai

Thanks for the tip on commenting out the categories until this article is ready to go. Can you take a quick look and make sure I did it correctly? Haddub 18:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derek

nice comment on ghits. I may borrow it, but probably in other contexts. Also your president's page. Suggestion-- "one or more terms" leaves open the possibility that someone who has served part of a term might be N.DGG 01:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG. I checked back at that AfD and now notice that the "Sources found through a Google search are invalid" argument is making headway. I guess I'll have to work that into the Notability for U.S. Presidents too. Dekkappai 01:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is, actually--which ones do you have in mind? I think the trend is to be more discriminating about just what is in fact searched for and found. What you might put in is that for presidents before the invention of the web there must be full documentation on google. I wish there were some way you could work in that web phenomena must be documented in print, & that it is impossible to write about blogs because all the documentation is in blogs. But maybe you can say that images of documents are inadmissible as being primary sources. DGG 04:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant that the use of Google as a research tool was being questioned only at the AfD. You probably follow Notability discussions a lot closer than I do. I get fed up with them pretty fast-- Countless uncredentialed pseudo-bureaucrats working against each other to spend time formulating rules which will be applied strictly and ultra-literally to some articles, and ignored for others... (This selective application of sourcing standards was impressed upon me this Sunday, when I added articles from the Mainichi Shimbun to general (non-erotic cinema) articles. Some of them were long articles which were so blatantly, totally unsourced I was embarrassed to add a link to a news article to them, as this one source would stick out like a sore thumb... On the other hand, articles on anything to do with eroticism, no matter how well-sourced, are constantly under threat of deletion.) I'm all for the best sources being used, if that's what the current discussion is recommending. But, from my experience, I fear that any rules set up will be applied strictly and ultra-literally to some articles. In other words, if the English-language sources on a well-sourced article on a Japanese model who debuted in March don't have the same authority as the sources for an article on Julius Caesar, out she goes. While a completely unsourced stub on the Spring, 1988 High Tea of the Lady's Auxiliary of the Hong Kong Division of the Kent Rugby Team is free and clear. Nothing titillating about that... But seriously... About Presidential Notability, maybe I could work in something about print sources being inadmissable unless they've been scanned, uploaded, and then printed out from a web page... a page that has not been found through a Google search, of course. (By the way, per your blog rule-- One line of reasoning at some of these AfDs went, "evidence of appearance in pornographic magazines cannot be given through citations to pornographic magazines, as pornographic magazines are not reliable sources...") Dekkappai 18:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted, I'm afraid. Epbr123 13:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Go, Go Second Time Virgin

Would you please look at the article Go, Go Second Time Virgin? Another editor created it, but I had to eliminate some copyvio text after someone else added a speedy tag. I added some references and an infobox, but the article needs attention from someone familiar with the film. --Eastmain 11:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Ozawa

I noticed that someone has posted her real name, which is an intrusion of her privacy. It has been removed, but users can still see it in past versions of the history page. Can you please remove the related versions in the history page too? Thanks. --Stockhunter 20:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use Images and J-Porn

Thanks for your interesting message. I'm not aiming to get involved in a debate over the notability of Japanese porn stars. I'm only interested in copyright issues right now. And my understanding of Wikipedia's fair use policy, as it is currently interpreted, is that nonfree images of living people are generally not permitted as fair use on Wikipedia when used to show what the person looks like. (See #8 on this list of unacceptable uses.) Yes, there are exceptions to that general rule, such as an image of someone taken while they were involved in a notable event that is discussed in the article. And it is arguable (but not established) that a nonfree photo of an actor in his prime may be used to show what he looked like in his prime if he is now elderly. But I believe it is clear that nonfree images of porn stars cannot be used as you are using them (i.e., to generally illustrate an article about the star), even if they are retired. --Butseriouslyfolks 22:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Butseriouslyfolks. #8 says, "...The rationale is that this is potentially replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph." Since these stars are retired from public life, no "freshly produced free photographs" are likely to be found of them. At least one such model has successfully sued for invasion of privacy when post-retirement photos were taken of her. (see this article) Discussions of these models' careers and specific films or videos are part of most of these articles. It is my understanding that an image of the poster of such a film, or the cover to such a video-- if placed next to the section of the article in which it is discussed-- is appropriate. I have spent a lot of time attempting to find the least offensive, face-only portraits for most of these articles. Video covers will certainly be much easier to find, but they are going to be far more explicit. I have intentionally tried to avoid being offensive in illustrating these articles, but is my only alternative, then, to use posters or video covers? Dekkappai 22:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not just a question of "finding" a free photograph. You have to allow for the possibility of "making" one as well, by finding the person (either through an agent or otherwise) and photographing her. It has been argued that nonfree images of people in hiding (such as Osama bin Laden) or recluses (like J. D. Salinger) are acceptable fair uses because they are making extraordinary efforts not to be found. I don't think there's been any official decision in that regard, but I have no problem with that. I suppose your model who has sued would qualify, but simply retiring from public life would not be enough, as I understand it.

As far as posters and video covers, those also cannot be used to show what a person looks like. They can be used to illustrate a significant discussion (as opposed to a mere mention) of their subject (e.g., the movie they are from, not just the actor or actress).

You do have another alternative, and that is to contact the model's management for permission to use certain photos pursuant to the GFDL. Those photos could then be used freely here (and elsewhere). I suspect when they see the care, effort and detail that you and others have put into these articles, you will get a lot of positive responses. If you want to do that, make sure you review WP:COPYREQ for suggestions and applicable procedures. --Butseriouslyfolks 23:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, Butseriouslyfolks. I'll certainly look into these suggestions, however, because the models are not currently active, as well as the cultural/language/geographical barriers, don't anticipate a lot of success in these areas... As far as using video/DVD covers merely to illustrate an article on a person-- I understand that this is not acceptable. In fact I have replaced many such images with these promotional photos. I would use images of these videos only to illustrate discussions of that particular video. I woud first try to find sufficient information and criticism of at least one such video per model to fill out a section of an article. (See here for an example.) And I would use those images to illustrate that section. Thanks again for the honest input. I may have panicked a bit at first over this matter, but think I'll be able to work it out. Cheers. Dekkappai 23:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have one more idea that might help, and that's for you to work through / with another editor who can communicate in both Japanese and English. The Babel userboxes create categories, so you just have to find one helpful soul among Category:User_ja who also speaks English. I expect also that you will find that many of them work through the same agents, so you may only need to hit up a few agents to cover yourself. I hope you don't mind, but I do plan to tag more of these images as possibly replaceable, when I have time. You should continue to do as you have been doing, adding the green box with an explanation on the talk page if you think the image is fair game for fair use. Eventually, an admin will make a decision one way or the other. Take care! --Butseriouslyfolks 00:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no hard feelings-- We'll get it straightened out and the articles will be better for it. Thanks for the further tips, and I'll look into them. Happy editing! Dekkappai 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images tagged for deletion

On June 28, 2007 Videmus Omnia tagged the following images for deletion. In order to save space, I have combined the notices left on my talk page into one. Dekkappai 21:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Videmus Omnia: "I have tagged [the following images] as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to [the image description pages] and a comment explaining your reasoning to the [image talk pages]."

Dekkappai, thanks for combining all the notices, and sorry again for the accidental flood. I got your message on my talk page. Just to clarify, I had scanned through the articles in Category:Japanese porn stars and reviewed the images in the articles there, tagging the ones I thought were replaceable (that's the reason the notices were in alphabetical order). I did see that one of the actresses was deceased, and I thought that was valid fair use, though I'm less clear on the retired ones (or the ones who are still active).

I was wondering - rather than fight out each individual image, would you be amenable to putting this batch up for review at WP:FUR? If you agree, I'm happy to remove the 'rfu' tags from all of the images and abide by whatever decision they make at WP:FUR. I'd say we could put them up for review in two groups - the retired actresses and the active actresses. Videmus Omnia 03:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a great suggestion VO. I wish I had thought of it. Please include the two that I tagged: Image:Kyoko_Aizome.jpg and Image:Anna_Ohura.jpg. Thanks! --Butseriouslyfolks 03:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would be fine with that too, Videmus. It would certainly save us both a lot of cutting-and-pasting, and it would get the question settled. (I won't be available to take part in a discussion until some time tomorrow, but here are a few quick thoughts: These are not simply celebrities who have retired. They use pseudonyms during their careers, intentionally hiding their real identities. Upon retirement, most of them vanish into anonymous private life intentionally. I don't think The Kaoru Kuroki example is simply a celebrity who is being pestered by paparazzi. Rather, this is a person who is intentionally keeping out of the public eye. This attitude towards privacy is common among retired erotic performers in Japan.) Also-- Butseriouslyfolks tagged Image:Yua_Aida.jpg too. Dekkappai 04:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. Good catch! --Butseriouslyfolks 04:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll work on this tomorrow evening - no decision is due to be made on the 'rfu' for a few days anyway. I'll remove the 'rfu' and 'disputed' tags from the images, consolidate them into one report to post at WP:FUR, and drop a note here when it's done. Videmus Omnia 04:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I understand what you're saying about privacy in Japanese culture, I lived on Okinawa for a few years and also spent time in Tokyo. Videmus Omnia 04:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Great. That'll put my contributions to the talk off till Monday, but I'll look forward to it. Cheers. Dekkappai 04:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I got all the image tags removed. Now I have to go take a cold shower. I'll put the request together tomorrow. Videmus Omnia 04:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the request for review here - when you get a chance, please stop by to add your comments or to expand on or clarify my remarks. I did my best to explain your point of view as I understand it. Videmus Omnia 15:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Videmus. I've chimed in there, and also dropped a note on the review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography‎, as members of this group may be concerned with the outcome as well. Dekkappai 19:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giichi Nishihara

Hi Dekkappai. You are off to such a great start on the article Giichi Nishihara that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for that note, Jreferee! I've been toiling away on these articles on obscure figures in Japanese cinema out of personal interest. I was afraid I barely had enough hard information on Nishihara to post the article. Your note is certainly encouraging, and I will follow through on the advice. Thanks again! Dekkappai 19:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 8 July 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Giichi Nishihara, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 11:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2 quick points

I saw your position on my RfA. I just wanted to mention that Xoloz himself deleted North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives on notability grounds before I had a chance to downgrade it to AfD. (You can verify this by the deletion note on the deleted page just over the edit box.)

Also, if the small number of people who patrol for copyright violations took the time to rewrite every infringing article, we'd never be able to keep up with the flow of infringing articles, as there can be several dozen per day.

I don't think it's fair to oppose my nom on the first basis. And although reasonable minds could differ on the second, I'd appreciate it very much if you would reconsider in light of these points.

Either way, thank you for your input. -- But|seriously|folks  22:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops. OK, changed to Neutral, BSF. (Maybe I should have just kept my big nose out of it!) Dekkappai 22:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, stick to the pink films!! Hahahaha. Seriously, thanks for revising that. See you around! -- But|seriously|folks  23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Pink films? Tough work, but someone's got to do it. Again, no hard feelings. If I'd known my vote was going to be a "neutral," I've have just kept out of it. Regards. (And good luck!) Dekkappai 23:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks much, and thanks for participating! -- But|seriously|folks  23:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creative Commons licensed pictures of Japanese stars

I don't know if you noticed Rosenzweig's post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography but there are a large number of Creative Commons licensed photos of what seem to be Japanese video stars on Flickr at http://www.flickr.com/photos/tu_foto/collections/72157600007703627/ Unfortunately I don't see any for articles you've already written, but I see the names Evelyn Lin, Rosena Song, Emiri Sena, Ai Himeno, Jasmine Mai, Fujiko Sakura, Haru Asahina, and there are quite a number of photos without names attached - perhaps you, as our local expert, would be able to put names to a few of the pictures, and add a few to relevant articles here? (There's one of Valentina Vaughn, which we do have an article on which needs a picture, but as she's not in your primary area, I'll grab that one...) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers, AnonEMouse. I've gone through more than one of these sources and turned up zero on our current articles. It might be worth it for me to start with one of the images we already have, and build an article up from there... but a quick check through my standard sources turns up nothing on these either... (Not all those you list are Japanese-- but I'm willing to step outside my jurisdiction on occasion ;) ) I'll do more research on the subject, and I'm sure we can get the problem worked out one way or another. Dekkappai 16:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that the end result of the discussion with the deleting editors was just more time and effort wasted, with the whole thing "resolved," apparently, as "nice talking with you, now we'll delete them all," since that's what's being done. In the face of this, I really see no point in putting any effort whatsoever into getting other images, and I'm seriously wondering why a person would continue to do volunteer work in an atmosphere in which those with the baseball bats knocking down the efforts of others are the ones who seem to be admired. While those of us who attempt to contribute are looked at as second-class citizens, barely tolerated only because of that pesky "assume good faith" commandment. Seriously-- Why spend time, effort and money trying to make contributions when it's so much easier, and apparently considered better, to delete? Dekkappai 19:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Calmly, calmly please. Not the end of the world. Even images can be undeleted now. Am I right that User:Carnildo deleted them? Perhaps he wasn't aware of the discussion at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review/Archive_1#Japanese erotic actresses. I asked: User_talk:Carnildo#Retired_Japanese_erotic_actresses. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence in that note, AnonEMouse. No, I'm not sure who's doing the actual deletions-- I assume it's being done by several editors, as are the taggings-- I've more or less given up following the debate on the images. Some of the deletion discussions I've seen had editors calling for the deletion of images that seemed to be quite clearly released for use, so I've accepted the fact that they'll all be deleted eventually. It's not the deletion of these particular images that is troubling me. It's the whole, "'Tis better to delete than to give," mentality that seems to be taking hold. I'm not panicking this time (for a change), just thinking things over. Maybe it's time for a break. Other projects call... Dekkappai 19:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please point me to the discussions about deletion of released images, I'll see if I can help. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of the Putin image, which comes with about as clear a "Please use this image" message as is likely to be found anywhere, yet even that one is up for deletion. Rather discouraging. Dekkappai 20:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Back to the original topic, from the discussion on his talk page, it looks like Carnildo is OK with me undeleting. Can you give me a list of pointers to images of the retired ones? I'll undelete. You will have to make a good faith effort, send an email asking for a release. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 09:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, AnonEMouse. Yes, I'm gathering information for approaching actresses & companies for requests. The language, cultural, geographical and Internet time- barriers are not minimal. (I've got about an hour a day, on a good day, 5 days a week, to do this sort of research, which makes time pretty precious. It may also help explain my hysteria when I see the glorious flag of Deletionism looming on the horizon...) My Japanese was pretty much picked up by bumming around the country whenever I got the chance. My reading is pretty good, spoken communication is decent, listening is better... but writing is the worst. I'll see what I can put together in the way of a photo request. But, to stave off getting something which is then deleted because the rules weren't followed exactly-- could you point me to something stating exactly what needs to be said in the way of a release? (I noticed that someone-- Tabercil, I think?-- had difficulty with the Wiki-nit-pickers and had to keep re-requesting release information from his source. The source finally threw up his hands and told him to send the exact words he had to say, and he'd e-mail them back verbatim.)

As far as who's retired-- it's sometimes difficult to tell. Some of these actresses retire in high-style, make a production out of it, and make it well known that they are disappearing from public view. Others just fade out. When I see inactivity for three or four years, I've been taking that as a sign of retirement.

Heh. You know, I was kind of proud of myself for getting half a dozen images released. And then I met Videus Omnia. In terms of getting image releases, this man has us all beat. Well, maybe not Tabercil, who got three hundred images with one release, but in terms of sheer number of releases, and sheer quality of released images... Anyway, he says his method is using WP:ERP, and mentioning that we're the #9 web site in the world according to Alexa, but I don't have a copy of a successful email request he sent; you may want to ask him. The ones that I send that work so far have been going to Flickr, and asking people to change the license of their image to CC-BY-SA. I have tried sending some request by email to others, but the failure rate on that has been a lot higher. Here is the one I sent that worked, for what it's worth. VO clearly has a much better success rate there.

Dear Mr. Margold, I'm a volunteer editor for
Wikipedia, a project to make a free encyclopedia on
the Internet. I wrote a short article on Viper, 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viper_(porn_star)
and wonder if you would be willing to release an
appropriate photograph to illustrate it. The one with
the cat you have on your web site,
http://www.billmargold.com/pictures/viper.jpg
would be wonderful, or perhaps you have another.
The Wikipedia is currently the #9 web site in the
world according to Alexa.com, so this would allow a
lot of people to see it.

To release would involve writing that you release this
picture under the Gnu Free Documentation License
(http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html),
which would make the picture free for people to use
(including outside the Wikipedia), as long as they
acknowledge you as the original owner, author, or
photographer. That's one of the goals of the
Wikipedia, to make more information free, and in
general we can't use information that isn't free like
that.

If you agree, write back saying that you release the
image under the GFDL, and specify how you want to be
credited (your name, web site URL, anything else). If
you could also write the date the photo was originally
taken, that would be great.

Thanks,
An Anon E. Mouse Wikipedia editor,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AnonEMouse

Unfortunately that doesn't save you from the Tabercil funky two step. Apparently image releases are just complicated for people to understand.

Several people I wrote to, with letters just like that, specifying that it needs to be a free for anyone to use license, wrote back saying, "yes, it's fine if you use this image on the Wikipedia." Including Mr. Margold, in fact. I had to write back and say, again, that that permission isn't good enough, they need to release it as public domain, or under GFDL, or under Creative Commons Share-Alike. Several people I wrote to on Flickr would first change their license to Creative Commons Non-Commercial, and I again had to write to them. "Thanks, but the license can't be CC-non commercial for us to include it. Wikipedia isn't commercial, but it lets everyone use it, including commercial users. Can you make it just CC-share-alike?"

But don't worry too much about that, frankly most of the letters I send to the stars themselves, never get any response. Bill Margold was a welcome exception.

Also, maybe I'm being optimistic, but if you are worried about your Japanese, I would just write the letters in English. I doubt you're the stars' only English-speaking fan, I imagine they would have someone able to read it.

Oh, if ... let's say when ... you get an adequate permission email, you should

1. upload the image to Wikimedia Commons
2. forward the permission email chain, your email request too if the reply didn't contain the request "as attachment" so it has as many headers as possible, to permissions-en AT wikimedia.org
3. and include a full link to the page where you uploaded the image.

Good luck. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 04:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, AnonEMouse. This will help a lot. As I've mentioned before, my time for researching these subjects is quite limited, so your pointers will help save some time wasted. As far as the language-- I'm planning on sending it in English and Japanese both. My experiences in Asia showed me that many there have at least a rudimentary (high school) ability with English, and some are very eager to practise with a native-speaker. (I was constantly being stopped by total strangers wanting to speak a little.) Still, it's pretty risky to go into a situation assuming that communicating only in English will be sufficient. Also, an effort to communicate in the language (no matter how clumsy) is usually appreciated and taken as a sign of good faith/interest/sincerity... Anyway, it should be an interesting project, and I'm looking forward to the challenge. You'll be the first to know when I get any results. Dekkappai 21:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"Funky two-step", AnonEMouse?? <G> Yeah, that's a safe description of the comedy that is User:Tabercil/Luke Ford permission. Dekkappai don't worry... things are a lot more smoothened out on the Wikipedia side now than when I went to get the pictures. For one thing, you can see what not to do when asking. And I do have a suggestion for you: write to the active Japanese starlets first as they're more interested in putting their faces out for publicity. Tabercil 22:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tabercil. I'll seek out the active ones first mainly because it's proving very difficult so far to find any clue as to how to contact the non-active ones, or anyone connected with them (hence the "non-replaceable fair-use" argument for the retired ones)... anything to avoid doing that Funky Tabercil Two-Step. ;) Dekkappai 23:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

On an unrelated note, have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Assessment? I realize I have absolutely no idea how to evaluate the importance of a Japanese star. Can you make some rules that would keep the 1:9:40:50 ratio or so? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 09:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you're assessing some of the articles I've been working on (kind of wish you'd held off on Aika Miura for another week, since I have her targeted for major renovation soon. But it looks like the porn project assessments are pretty easy, compared to the Japan project which has an enormous backlog.) I was not aware of that assessment project, and I'll do what I can to formulate standards for the Japanese subjects. One difficulty may be that the firm porn/mainstream barrier that exists in the U.S. is not at all as present in Japan. Several actresses and directors are not only porn celebrities, they are mainstream celebrities. Someone like Tatsumi Kumashiro is a (softcore) porn director, no two ways about it, but his porn movies have won the equivalents of Academy Awards in Japan. I suppose I just rate these subjects, for the porn project, on their importance in porn alone (as opposed to film or culture at large)? Dekkappai 18:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason you weren't aware of it is that I just made it, yesterday. That's why I brought it up. :-) So it's clearly a work in progress. Take a look at that page again, there's a JavaScript tool that can make assessing even easier, and other hints. Yes, feel free to override my importance ratings; my basic idea was approximately 1-2% Top, 10% High, 40% Mid, 50% Low, if we aim for that it should work out. So unless you have more than 50-100 Japanese AV articles, don't mark more than 1 Top, and a few High. :-) Yes, importance is different for each project, quality should be the same for all of them. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I suppose I should get off my butt and officially join the porn project too. I ran through some of the articles just now and rated just the most obviously "High" ones... the problem that came to mind is that the articles I've started were just on the most glaringly obviously giants in the field... (For the 1970s, I've just started on the 3 "Nikkatsu Queens," who reigned in succession-- each one of whom should, technically, be rated "High," but for now I've just given Naomi Tani, the Marilyn Monroe of Japanese erotic cinema the "high" rating.) So, since we don't have 100 articles yet, do I mark the "High" ones high in relation to the field at large, or rate some of the lesser "high" ones "not quite so high" in relation to the few articles that we have?... Dekkappai 21:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I see what you mean. If you only have 2 articles on physicists, they're naturally going to be Einstein and Newton. OK, let's look at it this way: Importance scale

• Top-importance - subject is famous in porn - almost everyone in porn knows about them, and highly notable even outside porn - even people who little to nothing about porn know about them. Linda Lovelace; Playboy; Traci Lords - multiple mainstream scholarly books, documentaries, movies
• High-importance - famous in porn, and notable outside porn - some people outside porn know something about them, would probably barely meet Wikipedia:Notability even without counting typical porn sources as such. Larry Flynt; Tera Patrick; Annabel Chong
• Mid-importance - either well known in porn and basically not known outside: (Jim South; the AVN Awards themselves), or not that well known in porn, but somewhat known outside (John Wayne Bobbitt; Chyna)
• Low-importance - known, but not well known in porn, and basically not known outside. Would be a keep, but not a speedy keep, in an AFD debate.

So ask two questions:

1. Is Naomi Tani known by a few people in Japanese porn (low), a lot of people in Japanese porn (mid), or almost everyone in Japanese porn (mid-top, see the next question)?
2. How well people who don't actually buy Japanese porn (but don't live in a cave either, they do read books and watch the news regularly) still know about Naomi Tani? Not at all (low-mid), somewhat (mid-high) or well (top)? In other words, does she appear in documentaries, scholarly books, and non-porn news sources - never (low-mid), very rarely (mid), occasionally (mid-high), or often (top)?

Hope that helps. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sukeban reference

Thanks for putting the Asian Cult Films reference in sukeban. :) It may only be a stub, but it's a well-referenced stub. -Malkinann 01:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure, Malkinann. I like to collect a lot of references first, then dig through those sources to build up the article. I've got the Pinky Violence DVD set, and its booklet contains a lot of good information as well. I'll add that to the references and article when I get the chance. I'm sure there are a lot more sources out there to be found. It'll be an interesting article. Cheers! Dekkappai 18:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AV Idols Template

Hey, feel free to make any changes to the template. I just wanted something that would consolidate all of the various articles in one easy to reference navigation guide. As it stands, they are rather fragmented and I think the template could help a lot, but its just a start. So go ahead and make any changes you think would improve it, additions or what not. Maybe changing the name of it to something like "Japanese Erotica/Pornography" or something might work? I knew there was some overlap, so I just sort of used the Japanese porn stars category as a means to base the template on. I will try to look into the world wrapping and see if I can stop it as that does look a bit unattractive.:) Arundhati lejeune 22:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. If you don't feel comfortable changing it, let me know and I can make the required edits. A template is just a WikiTable and although it might look a bit cryptic at first, they are pretty easy to get a boilerplate and then tinker with them bit by bit until you get what you want. Adding sections for the directors, writers, films would be a big plus. I am not sure how to do the hide thingy just yet, but I will look into it, it can't be that difficult. I think they key is to use the tnavbar-collapsible code near the top. Will have to create a sandbox and mess around with it. That might help the template from looking so large or from having duplicate information. Arundhati lejeune 22:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, sure, we can copy it over to the new name anytime. I will drop the "Pink Film" label in a sec. Thanks! Arundhati lejeune 23:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

See how this Template:Japanese Erotic Cinema template looks to you. I have Template:AV Idols redirecting to it. Feel free to make any alterations as you deem fit. :) Arundhati lejeune 00:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw the writer, looking forward to expanding that section as well. :) Arundhati lejeune 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting free images

Dekkappai, I just finished a how-to on requesting free images, feel free to use whatever is helpful. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Videmus. I always appreciate help from the pros-- and your image record is very impressive. Hey-- I've already picked up a tip. "if your page says you're a huge hentai fan... It could be a problem if you are contacting archbishops..."  ;) Dekkappai 22:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)