Talk:Bomis

The citation method is a bit wack
The citation method currently used is unorthodox and uncomfortable, IMO. Looking through this talk page I understand that it was changed to its current format in 2014 in order to mirror the method often used in FAs. The problem, such that I see it, is that in FAs this citation method (short form in "References" and more detailed form in "Bibliography") is usually used, and IMO works well, only for books. When used for websites as it is here, it is uncomfortable and makes a very long "Bibliography" section. Looking through the past couple TFAs I don't see any use this exact format.

Am I the only one who thinks this? Would there be any significant opposition to my changing the citation method yet again, to use the current post-2014 method for books and other printed sources and return to the "normal" pre-2014 long-form-in-references for websites and other electronic sources? I'll also see if I can introduce sfn into sourcing when I'm done. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the citations. They can be interlinked like this. QuackGuru ( talk ) 09:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that websites don't (usually) have "pages" like a book does, a website need be cited only once in the References section. The current citation format essentially gives the "References" section twice, which is a pain IMO. I see the use of the format in books, and have myself written/contributed to FAs with that format, but there's no reason to have it for websites. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The citation method is odd. I really wouldn't be against having a discussion about changing the style (in lieu of WP:CITEVAR). The Harv format was depreciated in September 2020. – The Grid  ( talk )  04:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Wording about subject
The lead currently includes these sentences: "'Bomis Babes' was devoted to erotic images;[5] the 'Bomis Babe Report' featured adult pictures.[7][12] Bomis Premium, available for an additional fee, provided explicit material." "Erotic images" is clear; however, is there a difference between "erotic images" and "adult pictures"? And does "explicit material" refer to films? I would assume so because the others are "pictures" not films. This is generally unclear, maybe intentionally. — Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 01:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No difference between "erotic" and "adult" in this context, although "explicit" presumably refers to outright pornographic (as opposed to merely erotic) material, whether softcore or hardcore. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, it's misleading to use the words "erotic images" and "adult pictures" as if they are referring to different things. — Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 01:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No it's not, it's just varied word choice (like "extremely red and incredibly crimson"). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is really no difference, then I think it would be better to say "Bomis Babes and the Bomis Babe Report were both devoted to erotic images." — Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't about the sources enough to know why it's phrased as it currently is, but a reasonable person would know that "erotic images" and "adult pictures" are synonymous. You may feel free to reword it if you are so inclined (although I personally feel that the "both" is unneeded), which for future reference should be done boldly and without bringing it up on the talk page unless it's controversial or reverted. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Description for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomis#/media/File:Bomis-staff-summer-2000.jpg is missing the 10th person that is standing.
To an editor: In the Nupedia and Wikipedia section on the right is a reference to the image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomis#/media/File:Bomis-staff-summer-2000.jpg. The description for this image lists that there are 9 people standing and 2 people sitting down. However, there are actually 10 people standing with 2 of them sitting down. The missing person in the photo that should come after "Toan Vo" is named "Andrew McCague".

This description is correct in the summary for the actual file itself at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bomis-staff-summer-2000.jpg (which correctly lists Andrew McCague after Toan Vo), and it is only the reference on the Bomis page that is missing him. 24.167.35.28 (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

"Analysis"
The "Analysis" section is just a bunch of seemingly random quotes about the company. Nothing indicates these mentions are inherently notable. Why is this included, and what is the "analysis" that it provides? -- Zim Zala Bim talk 15:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now this is has been renamed "Description of site" which is even more non-encyclopedic. We don't need to include a bunch of opinions about a website unless they are notable in themselves. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 04:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We document what RS say about Bomis. This is part of what makes it notable enough for an article here, and it's of interest what reputation it has among RS. Bomis is the one that's notable, while the sources only have to be reliable. We document both facts and opinions here. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 04:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove yacht photo description?
In the "Hosted Content" section a photo of Jimmy Wales in a yacht is described but not included. I'm not sure that the photo is notable or relevant to the article (maybe INDISCRIMINATE?), but if it is mentioned, the photo itself (published by The Register here, seemingly under Jimmy Wales's copyright https://www.theregister.com/2012/03/12/jimbo_whitehall_divine_master/) should be included. In my opinion the photo does help convey Wales's image during the dot-com boom era, but that would make it more appropriate for his bio page than this one. 69.123.217.7 (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Add another bracket?
The beginning of the article, "Bomis (...from Bitter Old Men in Suits (rhyming with "promise")..." is written in this manner. Shouldn't there be another bracket after the "promise" part? So it would be "Bomis (...from Bitter Old Men in Suits (rhyming with "promise"))" 178.75.53.169 (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)