From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please see Porn stars WikiProject for the proper templates and guidelines for creating and maintaining entries on erotica performers.

Contents 1 How to use the template 2 Field descriptions 2.1 IAFD & IMDB 3 Discussions 3.1 no fields visible? 3.2 New fields 3.2.1 num. films / name 3.2.2 iafd/imdb links 3.3 Applications 3.4 This template has gotten too huge now 3.5 Remove "orientation" listing 3.6 Question 3.7 "alias" 3.8 Natural Bust neccessary? 3.9 Birth Name? 3.10 The name of the template 3.11 Added "Eurobabeindex" field 3.12 Hair length field 3.13 Propose "bgafd" and "egafd" fields 3.14 Changes to template 3.15 More fields

[edit] How to use the template

Basically, the template should be inserted into an applicable document near or at the top of the textbox, using the example below:

Female adult bio
Birthdate:	June 12, 1980
Birth location:	Manchester, Connecticut, USA
Birth name:	Jane Doe XII (challenged. One Wikipedian recommends this is inappropriate to include.)
Date of death:	July 4, 2010
Measurements:	72QQQQ-23-34
Height:	53 ft 4 in (16.3 m)
Weight:	1100 lb (500 kg)
Eye color:	red
Hair color:	puce
Skin color:	white
Natural bust:	yes (contested)
Orientation:	lesbian
Ethnicity:	Chinese (contested)
Alias(es):	Jackie Love, Mistress Passion
No. of films:	248
Official Website
Female adult bio at IMDb
Female adult bio at IAFD
Female adult bio at AFDB

{{Female adult bio|

 photo= [[Image:Bouguereau venus detail.jpg|200px|Bouguereau venus]]

|birth= [[June 12]], [[1980]]

|location= Manchester, Connecticut, USA

|birthname= Jane Doe III

|death= [[July 4]], [[2005]]

|measurements= 35DD-23-34

|height= 5 ft 4 in

|weight= 110 lb

|eye color= hazel

|hair color= auburn

|skin color= white

|natural bust= yes

|orientation= [[heterosexual]]

|ethnicity= [[Caucasian]]

|nationality= [[American]]

|films= 248

|alias= Jackie Love, Mistress Passion

|homepage= http://en.wikipedia.org/

|imdb= 4858588

|iafd= MistressPassion

|afdb= 69/Mistress-Passion

}}

The result is on the right.

This will align/float to the right of the article's main text. Also, there shouldn't be any need to repeat the same information in the article's main text with the exception of the birth name, location, and dates of birth and death.

Please also note that the pipe in front of {{Female adult bio|}} is not accidental, it is required for the template to render correctly. Instead, you'll just print out the syntax.

[edit] Field descriptions

Each field is fairly straight forward. Should you have any confusion on what a field is for, click the linked field name. It'll lead you to the appropriate article on Wikipedia.

For consistency:

• keep the dates in the Month Day, Year format;
• measurements should be in a bra-waist-hip format;
• measurements, height and weight should be in both the metric system and imperial system whenever possible;
• orientation should be one of three things: bisexual, heterosexual or homosexual;
• ethnicity should be specific and proper -- avoid "black" or "white" -- if you don't know the proper term for an ethnicity, refer to the List of ethnic groups.

Remember to try and make the template human-readable, so that others who follow you can easily make any corrections or additions to your template.

For fields which you are uncertain about, define them but do not enter any text after the equals sign.

[edit] IAFD & IMDB

For these links, you do not need the full URL. You only need the id part of the URL. Here are two examples, where the ID number location is boldfaced:

• For IMDB: http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000000
• For IAFD: http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid=JJameson/gender=f

[edit] Discussions

[edit] no fields visible?

Presumably due to User:Melancholie's latest edits, nothing is showing up for me except a pink box with the actresses' name. -EdgarAllanToe 14:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is intended! A table row is only shown if you fill in information in an article. If any parameter is undefined (not given at all, or the parameter line was removed from the article (that's rather often the case)) or empty (mentioned, but with no value "|death="), the superfluous, unnecessary table cells are not shown! --- Best regards, Melancholie 15:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that many articles on my watchlist had most of the fields filled in. Now when I check on them, there is only the name and no other information. For instance, Anna Malle. -EdgarAllanToe 12:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I checked out Anna Malle and didn't find any fields missing. Perhaps you need to purge your browser's cache or simply do a hard-refresh of the page in question. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 15:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Purged, forced a refresh of the page, and still just see a pink box with the name. If others can see the information, it's obviously a peculiarity of my setup. Damn. -EdgarAllanToe 16:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Which web browser and operating system do you use? Maybe it's a problem of your browser (but if so, I do not know why, because the whole thing is done by the Wikipedia server)? Could you additionally have a look on the HTML source code? -- Best regards, Melancholie 17:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have made two changes (one in the row "birthdate" and one in the row "birth location"! Does your browser show one of these? I recognized that Opera and Firefox prefer style="" to class="", and when style="" is used twice, they prefer the second of these both. So "style" and the "last mentioning" has most weight (like it should be, of course ;-). Maybe your browser works different? Dillo, for example, shows everything, as long as the parameters are defined (valued or empty). If not, {{{..xyz..}}} appears (Dillo generally does not render CSS,..). This means we should not delete the parameters ("|death=") in the articles! -- Best regards, Melancholie 21:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Birth location shows up for me now. I am using IE 6.0, by the way. -EdgarAllanToe 11:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

For your information: Still having the same problems with this template as reported by Edgar... Is this really a browser thing or is some other repair to be done? Regards, --Garnier 10:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Garnier, EdgarAllanToe: Is everything visible for you now? --Melancholie 20:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The example on this page is now working for me. -EdgarAllanToe 15:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Confirmed. And thank you. --Garnier 19:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New fields

[edit] num. films / name

Two missing fields that I would like are:

• Number of Films — estimates are available from the adult DBs
• Name — so I can change it

What do people think? --vossman 20:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Problem now is that once the changes are implemented to the template, each page using the template will have to be edited to ensure that the template displays correctly. (Otherwise some of the results will turn out to be less than desired...) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the changes. You may now edit the name attribute by adding "name=" (sans quotes) to the FAB template syntax. (Make sure to use the pipe as well to denote the end of the field!) Unlike the other fields in the template, you do not need to explicitly declare this line within the template syntax; it'll just default to the name of the article. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've noticed your comments, but didn't respond. Good job. --vossman 16:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] iafd/imdb links

Wouldn't it be much better to add links to iafd/imdb at the end of the infobox ? These are extremely useful and should be present on every article anyway. This avoids cluttering the "See also" section. This is done on the film info box (Template:Infobox_Film). Actually I am a little bit reserved about the usefulness of imdb links but if we want them anyway it is still better to put them in the infobox, for consistency. -- tonigonenstein 23:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with this. I'll begin work on the template Monday. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Now all that needs to be done is to add the proper id numbers/strings to the iafd and imdb fields. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applications

Should this template be used for non-pornographic actresses? Right now it's being used at Rachel Sterling and I'm just curious if it's the right template to be using for her. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 01:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it works and it's the right tool for the job, I guess it can be applied to articles akin to Rachel Sterling. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 02:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And Benazir Bhutto? It works, but I don't think it is the right tool for the job. --Palnatoke 11:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's also in use on Jodie Foster's article. Would you disagree with its usage on that page as well? I'll grant you that the template was originally meant to summarize porn actress info, but it can be used on other pages that have absolutely nothing to do with pornography. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 01:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This template has gotten too huge now

Does anyone else agree that all the public hair/body hair other miscellaneous crap, ahem, information bloats the template? If so, please lets begin discussion on how to condense the template. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Skin color, underarm hair, and pubic hair are of little use, especially the later as it may change almost daily. Dismas|^(talk) 03:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned the template. I did keep the skin color (although I think I may remove it, but I'm still undecided on its being in the template) and I kept the blood field as well, seeing as the latter is a sought after attribute in Japanese porn stars/idols. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 02:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove "orientation" listing

This could lead to a libel case. Just because a woman has appeared in a lesbian role does not mean she is lesbian or bisexual. It's acting, just like any non-porn actress who has played a lesbian but does not identify as such. I propose moving the item from the template. Jokestress 03:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I got your e-mail. :-) I believe that the field just needs to be clarified. Perhaps we would be better off noting "on screen" orientation, rather than real life orientation. Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 19:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I took it out for the time being because of a complaint by a porn actor, but, I guess maybe a "Roles played" vs. "Orientation" could be OK. I'm not sure what the value of that is, though. It seems like pretty much any woman in porn has done a scene with another woman. In addition, I imagine any complaints are going to come from males who object to being labeled (which started the issue). Jokestress 10:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

i think it's important to distinguish "roles played" and /or "orientation". in the industry, a big factor in the work one gets is who he/she is willing to have sex with. 67.172.61.222 23:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

What does "afdb" mean? I Am Ri¢h! 23:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an acronym: Adult Film Database. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the URL for the site? (last question) Never mind, I figured out. I Am Ri¢h! 01:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "alias"

Is this to include aliases OTHER than the main one? Because as it currently is, if that's the case, then it's very confusing. --Golbez 14:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Perhaps the wording could be made a bit more precise. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 01:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natural Bust neccessary?

Is this category heading neccessary? This topic is frequently a subject of dispute with various female celebrities and models, and is often hard, if not impossible, to conclusively resolve. Some plastic surgery techniques can make breast implants much harder to detect than normal (such as submuscular underfilled implants.) For a lot of celebrities, the only real way to be fully certain of this is if the person in question admits to having had surgery. In any case, this category doesn't really seem to be all that significant for most of the articles (and for many of women for whom this question would be relevant, it is as mentioned impossible to find a 100% certain answer.) -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.30.206.67 (talk • contribs).

Actually, given that this piece of information is of interest (particularly for the big-busted models), I would say it's relevant. However, in cases where we don't know, the field could easily be left blank depending on the article's subject. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 13:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of private interest: Why are breast enlargments not natural when breast reduction surgeries are? --32X 21:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think in the context of porn, yes, the information is very relevant. And "hard to tell"? We're talking about porn here – when breasts aren't hidden by clothing, I think its pretty easy to tell an enhanced breast from a natural one. The downside, of course, is that this constitutes original research. Anyway, I'm sure there are interviews and websites that could be cited on the subject. Iamcuriousblue 05:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birth Name?

I think it is inappropriate and dangerous to include birth names in pornstar bios on wikipedia. Pornographic film actresses work under assumed names for very good reasons including reputation and safety. There is also no public interest served by including that information.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.58.56.5 (talk • contribs).

I don't think its either inappropriate or dangerous, unless the information does not come from a verified and reliable source. If we don't have a valid, reliable source for the information, then I do agree that it should be removed. However, neither Wikipedia nor any self-respecting information source has, amongst its goals, to protect people from themselves or to decide which information is "dangerous". In addition, the "public interest" is a weasel term at best. It's also an oxymoron of sorts like "common sense". If we went by that, you'd be surprised by what the public is interested in. We are here to report, not to protect. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 20:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The name of the template

In the Russian wiki, the translation of this template is heavily debated. One of the issues is the title. The translation of the title was more like "Female porn star" literally Pornoaktrisa (Порноактриса). The opponent claimed that this title bears heavily derogatery connotations. Let us perform an imaginary experiment: what if the English template is renamed into Female Pornstar? (The specifics of the Russian language is that it is only hardcore that is called Pornografia. The softcore is called Erotika (Эротика)). Wouldn't the women editors protest because of this renaming? Alexei Kouprianov 00:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why only the women would complain. --Golbez 01:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Then, I reformulate the question: why the authors of the English template didn't call it Female pornstar bio and used Female adult bio instead? The other issue is why the orientation field renders invisible on the pages, even when filled? Alexei Kouprianov 06:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suppose that the person who named it used "adult" because "porn film" is more of a colloquial phrase whereas the industry term is "adult film" (e.g. Adult Video News). Also, softcore films, as well as hardcore, both fall under the umbrella term of "adult movies". Dismas|^(talk) 09:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added "Eurobabeindex" field

I added a field for Eurobabeindex, since this database lists website appearances that are not listed in the film or video databases like IMDB or IAFD. There are actually several databases along the lines of Eurobabeindex, but Eurobabeindex is the most complete that I know of. Iamcuriousblue 18:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hair length field

I suggest a hair length field. There are large communities on the Internet of admierers of very short or very long hair. Hair length is a just as important key factor as hair color when searching for a model you don't remember the name of. Based on this factor, the model may be listed in the list page Women with very long hair. The field may reflect the most extreme value, for example the longest or shortest hair length the model ever has had. Examples of possible values in this field - commonly used in various hair dicsussion forums:

• Crew cut (or cropped)
• Boy's cut
• Chin length
• Shoulder length
• Upper back length
• Mid back length (or Bra strap length)
• Waist length
• Tailbone length (or butt-length)
• Thigh length (or Mid-thigh length)
• Knee-length
• Floor length
• Beyond floor

If I don't here any comment on this within a few hours, I will add the field. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Longhairadmirer (talk • contribs) 12:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

That's hard to find information on. The other numerical fields - date of birth, and "measurements", for example - are more common, and can be found in the IAFD, and Adult Film Database for example. Also many performers that have a personal web site put them up there. Where are you going to find a reasonably reliable source for hair length for most of our articles? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that the uncommon or extreme lengths - say greater than waist length - are probably going to be important enough to note in the body of the article in a sentence or two. But their rarity is what makes them noteworthy. An info box is for important stats for most of the subjects. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that such a thing is hard to find information on, and since hair styles can (and do) change drastically and frequently, I do not think the infobox would benefit from such a field. Furthermore, the information is so uncommon that it doesn't merit inclusion in an infobox. And any unique or rare hair lengths can easily be noted in the article's body. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 05:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm also opposed to having the field included. I agree with the statements of both Joe Beaudoin Jr. and AnonEMouse. Dismas|^(talk) 05:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propose "bgafd" and "egafd" fields

I would like to propose fields for bgafd and egafd, databases that lists films made by British and other European actors and actresses who often aren't listed in iafd and other film or video databases. Malik Shabazz 18:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We already have eurobabeindex, unless there's another pressing reason to add these two databasees. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• These do not seem to add much. They have nothign like the authority of the others already listed, and I have yet to come across an article with a link to BGAFD that does not also have IAFD links. OK, not quite true - one or two now-deleted articles had, but that's because they failed WP:PORNBIO. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with these adds and was thinking of doing it myself. Guy's contention that listings in the BGAFD and EGAFD are already largely covered in IAFD is simply wrong. IAFD does not cover the European adult industry, hence there are numerous British, French, German, etc. titles that are not listed in IAFD. Nor is this content covered by Eurobabeindex, which primarilly covers website content. I say, add the fields – its not like they have to be used for each and every actress listed, just use them where appropriate (like the "Eurobabeindex" field). Iamcuriousblue 22:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Charmaine Sinclair is an example of an actress who is covered in bgafd but not in iafd or eurobabeindex. Julia Chanel is in both egafd and iafd, but compare her entries at the two sites. (Like Sinclair, Chanel isn't in eurobabeindex.) Malik Shabazz 05:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Corrections or additions can (and are) always made to databases, much like wikipedia. So if someone finds that a porn star isn't added in IAFD, then they can always submit corrections or additions. Still, as an interim solution, links to databases not supported by this template can always be added to the external link sections of the articles as needed. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 12:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• To be honest, I firmly believe that the template is getting too long as it is and, on that basis alone, object to the addition of additional filmographies. Adding more fields would be detrimental to the original need for this template—which is to summarize and include information that would otherwise be unwieldy in the main article body. Having said that, please note that contributors are more than welcome to add filmography links from verifiable and reliable sources to the article's external links section, should consensus permit. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 12:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is simply an argument for getting rid of some other superfluous fields rather than not adding egafd and bgafd, which are highly useful, non-superfluous sources of information about European adult actresses. The afdb field should absolutely go – AFDB has absolutely no information not found on IAFD and is essentially a site run by an online retailer – glorified linkspam, really. Other less-than-useful field include orientation (eg, sexual orientation, which inevitably seems to be "bisexual") and blood (blood type - why???). films seems like another superfluous one; it be useful in rare cases where an actress has only appeared in a very few films and isn't on any of the databases – but in that case, why would they even be notable enough to have an article to begin with?

Consider including egafd and bgafd and getting rid of these other ones. Iamcuriousblue 23:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That's probably the best solution, actually. I'll write a summary of what changes need to be done, so that people can voice their views on them later. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 00:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

We've discussed the AFDB link before, and consensus indicated that it was an O.K. link. The number of films is somewhat useful, more from a statistical standpoint. As for the blood thing, this is more for Japanese AV idols rather than European or American pornography performers. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to template

In lieu of the discussion above, I think its time that the infobox be trimmed back a bit. Here are my thoughts on what needs to go:

• Removal
  • orientation (an often misused field, encyclopedically it has no merit and the content could easily be integrated into the article body, if need be)
  • skin color (really, no need for this, as this can easily be determined)
  • shoe size (an absolutely unencyclopedic field, with no more merit than a field on hair length)

I believe the filmography links could be ordered better, into clickable boxes, which would look something like:

Filmography databases
IMDB	IAFD
AFDB	Eurobabeindex
EGAFD	BGAFD

This would reduce template clutter. Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I like this, though I would put EGAFD and BGAFD right underneath IAFD, as they have the most analogous content. A problem with this template, though – many, maybe even most, actresses are not going to be in every database.

Also, could you explain why AFDB is not superfluous? Iamcuriousblue 10:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I prefer that the list of links be in alphabetical order, as that removes any bias. As for the AFDB, the discussion that was done six months ago is here. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 11:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Orientation is absolutely encyclopedic, but I would take it out of the infobox. I would remove the other two fields from the infobox too. The more stuff is in an infobox the less useful it is -- too visually distracting. As a matter of user interface, I would restrict infoboxes to half a dozen fields at most. --lquilter 15:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  Honestly I would also delete hair & eye color. Hair color is completely changeable, and does it mean natural; most famous for; current ...? Eye color is increasingly changeable with colored contacts and will pose the same issue. Skin color is actually more stable than either of these. --lquilter 15:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 17:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• I would also remove weight, which never stays the same and is not easily verifiable anyway (since it's frequently lied about). Height is stable, but I would get rid of it.

  Finally, I would just keep the professional stuff & very basic bio stuff: birth/birthplace/death; aliases; I would change # of films to filming career (a date range); and include the links to significant websites, like official site and entry in DBs for complete filmographies; and I would include a space for notable works or awards, to be limited to no more than 3. --lquilter 15:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the weight thing. Height I would keep, as well as the measurements (since they're given out frequently), and I do agree that the number of films should be changed to a date range indicating the span of the person's career. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 17:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick cmt: I really dislike the BWH measurements category, for, among other reasons, the changeability of it, but I'm going to recuse myself from that discussion for right now. Even if I were for BWH measurements, however, I would still advocate for eliminating the other physical attributes because they are (a) variable; (b) clutter making it hard to see more important things. --lquilter 20:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of these fields are changable... I favor removal of orientation, which I've always thought was borderline absurd. (How many exclusively lesbian adult stars are there? And how many female stars don't engage in the occasional lesbian scene?) I tend to look at the physical data as a snap-shot of the model's statistics at one particular time. Because of my own area of specialization, I favor Blood Type and Shoe Size (less so). Neither one really interests me personally, but because both are almost almost given in Japanese profiles, we can assume that they are considered important statistics over there. I'd like the ability (though I realize it's probably not practical) to put in two or three standard Japanese databases, which I use as sources on every page I can: The JMDB (a standard filmography source, comparable to IMDB), the Web I-dic (or "Idol Dictionary"), and maybe the "AV Idol Directory". I realize that these are completely useless to editors in the non-Japanese articles, but then these other links are usually equally useless for the Japanese subjects... The ability to put in whichever ones are needed would be nice. (By the way, I hope it doesn't appear that I'm making these suggestions out of any sort of national bias. I leave the suggestions for the US subjects up to the editors in those articles, but just want to mention concerns I have as an editor in the Japanese articles. In my research, I've repeatedly read (in English) that the Japanese porn industry is the largest and most visible in the world, so I think some sort of concession to the differences between the US and Japan is not out of order.) I've been doing what I can to make sure every article in the "Category:Japanese porn stars" is as good as it can be. Lately I feel like the unintentional bias against the non-US articles is much more under control, since the issue has been raised. But incidents like recent threat against the entire Japanese porn star category here in retaliation for something as slight as an expression of concern over POV-pushing leads me to suspect that attacks out of intentional bias are always imminent... Dekkappai 20:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also favor removal of hair and eye-color. Speaking from my editing experience, number on physical dimensions, even though changable, are usually given in some official profile. Hair and eye-color is probably taken from the editor's personal viewing (i.e., original research) of photos or videos. Dekkappai 21:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More fields

To be added:

• pubic hair - shaved/partly shaved/not shaved
• work - does she do cum swallowing/anal/A2M/creampies/girl-girl/DP and etc.

--TRFA 18:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Why? I fail to see the rationale behind this. The infobox should be the core encyclopedic information and not a laundry list of stuff about the actress, especially about things such as pubic hair and work which can and likely will change over time. Sorry... but until someone can give me a damn good reason why, I'm pulling these two fields out. Tabercil 22:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm with you here, Tabercil. The infobox should be as concise as possible. Details on the subject belong in the body of the article. That's my view anyway. Dekkappai 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)