Talk:Lolita City

What to display in the web address field when we don't give a link
There is consensus that for at least some onion sites that we should not give a link to the site from the article. At Talk:The Hidden Wiki I have raised a question about what we should show in the infobox in place of a link in those cases, your views would be welcome there. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Since this site is offline, does that change anything? I'm not sure it would be at all useful to link to a defunct website, and I'm equally unsure whether it would be legal to link to a prohibited website, even if it is defunct. The only usefulness I can think of for publishing the URL in the article is in cases where the URL itself is interesting. An example of that is silkroad6ownowfk.onion for Silk Road (marketplace), because .onion addresses are generated randomly and that is obviously not a random .onion address. Badon (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Victims
It is not neutral to describe the people in the images hosted as "victims" without a source that explicitly calls all of them that. The definition of what constitutes child pornography varies by jurisdiction, and no reliable source I can find states that every image was pornographic even under US law (although it is unclear why that would apply to a site apparently hosted in Ireland?). Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't help with that. Lolita City is not well covered on the internet.--Tco03displays (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Although it's possible not all things the site hosted would be unanimously considered to be depicting "victims" of child pornography in all jurisdictions, it does appear that all mentions of this site are unanimous in the opinion that it did indeed contain at least some things that would be illegal in all jurisdictions. On that basis, I think the use of the word "victims" is appropriate even if some parts of this site possibly did not involve "victims", because as far as I can tell that's the only thing that makes the website notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. With that said, child pornography is an unverifiable crime, so an earnest discussion like this can never be resolved completely, because (presumably) no one here can ever see for themselves what the article subject is (a website that is illegal to view). Badon (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Current incarnation of Lolita City
Any idea if we should include the current incarnation on wikipedia? (Assuming it's related to the more-notorious LC), given that this incarnation hosts only "hq legal stuff" 72.78.199.240 (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyone can rip off a template of a website and spin up their own onion service. This article is about the "original" website (identified by the unique onion address, the hostname generated by a unique pair of hs_ed25519 key pair). We do not talk about supposed incarnations. -- WikiLinuz { talk } 🍁  06:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)