Talk:Fucking Machines/Archive 1

Contested deletion
Seems well referenced. Suggest AfD. -- Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy nominator was a sock and troll - blocked. JohnCD (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved primary sourced info to talk page
Fucking Machines makes use of over 30 machines, most of which utilize electric motors to provide thrusting action, simulating human coitus with a dildo for either anal and vaginal penetration (or both). Other devices commonly used on the site include the Sybian and the Hitachi Magic Wand. Suction-based stimulation devices are also sometimes used, as are non-electric penetrative devices like the Monkey Rocker, which utilizes the user's own weight in a rocking motion to drive penetration. Many of the scenes on the site feature anal penetration, double penetration, and female ejaculation. Major adult actresses appearing frequently on the site include Annie Cruz, Amber Rayne, Harmony Rose, Delilah Strong, and Trina Michaels.

Above was primary sourced info, moved to talk page from main article page. Will try to find similar info sourced to secondary sources, instead. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested copy edit from Guild of Copy Editors
My third quality improvement project related to freedom of speech and word taboo surrounding the word "fuck", after prior WP:GA contributions of Fuck (film) and Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

I've requested a copy edit from WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, hopefully they'll be by some time soon to go through the article.

Cheers,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible See also additions
Possible See also additions: &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mechanophilia
 * Object sexuality
 * Sexual fetishism
 * Technosexual
 * Vibrator (sex toy)
 * Template:Masturbation = modify this to footer navbox?

Copyedits
Hi!

Great article, Cirt. Finally a Wikipedia article that relates to my everyday life. Har har.

Here's what I'm thinking, in a chunky, rambling list. We already acknowledged a couple of these points on my talk page, but I thought I'd elaborate. Obviously, you don't have to take any of these suggestions deep down. Just passing observations.

Have a good day, Bobnorwal (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Reduce the size of the lead. I think its basic structure is sound, in that it basically mirrors the main text like it's supposed to. But you can definitely take out many of the details. For example, you can cut the list of three films the lawyer cited and "In the 2005 book edited by Carly Milne Naked Ambition". At least in the lead.
 * I mentioned flow to you on my talk page. Just to note, I think the "Trademark appeal" section is fine. But I almost feel the other stuff should be rearranged into a new section or two. Having a "Controversy" just makes sense to me. I guess that's what the "Analysis" section kinda is right now. But I just feel like there should be a section where the critics state their minds and then the site responds. You know... now that I think about it, I'm not crazy about this idea. Never mind.
 * Maybe have a "Promotions" or "Public Relations" section. I dunno. I just feel like too much is lumped together in that one section, "Film production". That's probably because your (Cirt's) main focus is more the use of the word "fuck" than it is pornography. But, after all, Fucking Machines is a pornography website, and I feel there should be more focus on that.
 * The phrase "In 2009 the site featured 50 different devices in its films" pops up a couple times. I'm a little confused by that. Do you mean literally in 2009 or that they had accumulated 50 devices in their films between 2007 and 2009?

Thanks very much for the helpful copy edits! Thanks again,
 * Response to comments by Bobnorwal
 * 1) Done. Implemented those two specific suggestions about the lede as you recommended, above. I definitely will reduce the size of the lede even more.
 * 2) Thanks for saying you think the Trademark appeal sect is fine. I think in general Wikipedia policies and guidelines frown against "Controversy" sects, so I think we'll stick with "Analysis" as the title of the sect. The point is -- the only thing in common about everything in that sect is they are all forms of "Analysis" from secondary sources.
 * 3) I dunno about this idea for a "Promotions" or "Public relations" sect. That seems a bit -- unencyclopedic. But I'll do some researching what other quality articles on Wikipedia related to film production have for their organizational structure, and go from there.
 * 4) This just means "By 2009...", I've changed it accordingly in those places.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , I've gone ahead and greatly reduced the size of the lede, I think it looks much better in this more succinct format. What do you think? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

A couple comments: &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Annalee Newitz of AlterNet visited the set of Fucking Machines in 2006 and classed the production as part of the phenomenon of Porn 2.0." might want to include a brief definition of "Porn 2.0" here. Ditto for Transhumanism.
 * "Bonnie Ruberg of The Village Voice called Fucking Machines, "a porn site dedicated entirely to women having sex with metal partners who plug into the wall."[4]" Not sure this quote adds much, at least not this late in the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Good idea, I can add that in a Footnote soon.
 * 2) Okay, I'll see if there's something else to add from this secondary source instead.
 * ✅, alright,, I've added those terms in a Footnote section, and incorporated that source in other ways and trimmed that particular usage of it. Thanks again for your helpful comments, the article looks much better for it, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)