Talk:XHamster

Rank was
xHamster at this writing have Alexa Internet rank 55 (see http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/xhamster.com) which notably make it to one of the most popular websites in the world. --David Hedlund (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Laure chutiye madarchod bhosdike 😅 2409:40E1:2B:6472:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Houston, Texas?
Why does the article state xHamster's headquarters are in Houston, Texas? Is there any proof to substantiate this claim? It's pretty obvious the site itself is not run by native English speakers; plus this (admittedly somewhat dated) article claims xH is run from Europe. 2001:4DD0:FF00:9CAF:5D44:83D1:AC0C:12A6 (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Not anymore. Wrong and fixed. It's Cyprus. Tacit Murky (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If the vandal(s) change the location to Texas again, please fix it anyone. I submitted the page for Semi-Protection but there wasn't enough vandalism to merit semi-protection. The vandals will need to do it several more times over a period of a few days to merit semi-protection. CerealKillerYum (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you submit it here? I don't see your request anywhere… Tacit Murky (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it already has been archived. CerealKillerYum (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Dot-com company
Given the later additions, I suggest to change category for the subject from just a «website» to «dot-com company». This should give an opportunity to enhance the right column with more relevant info about services they provide using richer template. Tacit Murky (talk) 05:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The Dot-Com Company Template is used for when the article is about both the company and website. This article is about xHamster.com, the website. It does not cover Hammy Media Ltd, the company. Hence, the Website Infobox is better. CerealKillerYum (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, but where is the article about Hammy Media? Is there a point to have a separate one? Look at Pornhub — the template is «dot-com», but the article is mainly about the site. Tacit Murky (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hammy Media Ltd can have an entry in Wikipedia if it meets WP:ORG, which it doesn't seem to. CerealKillerYum (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Right, so let's make this article «about both the company and website», as you say. At least we can put a redirecting link for «Hammy Media» here. Tacit Murky (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Very little coverage of xHamster focuses on Hammy Media. Hammy Media is responsible for xHamster, but there's nothing else that can really be said about it, as is natural for something operated by a board of anonymous figures in Cyprus. That's why the article is not about "both the company and the website"; Hammy Media does not warrant terribly significant coverage. PornHub, in comparison, is part of a larger porn network operated by MindGeek, and has a clear board of figures, which makes the dot-com template much more useful than it would be for xHamster. A redirect is fine, though--I've gone ahead and created one. —0xF8E8 (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

They have a YT channel, but there's nowhere to put that link within this category. Hm?… Tacit Murky (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No link to the YouTube Channel please. See WP:ELNO. CerealKillerYum (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Site blocking
XHamster was and/or is blocked in many countries (Malaysia, China, Russia, Turkey, India, Kyrgyzstan, Thailand, etc.), but I can't find any normalized way to denote this without overblowing the reference section. There are many links to prove all cases of censorship one by one, but this seems to be an abuse of the whole idea of having reliable sources for everything. I can add a naive version of that topic to the text in hopes that someone can fix it later. Tacit Murky (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * How about a reliable secondary source that states the fact that the site has been blocked? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What kind of secondary source can it be? If the primary one says 2+2=4, do you need the secondary? OTOH, we can find a link to online availability check services. But this will do only for current blockings, not past ones. Tacit Murky (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In general, secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. See WP:PSTS. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 10:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks like 0xF8E8 found a secondary source for you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, link to Livemint is mine, see above (15:56, 5 July). It was in the main article with my addition until you removed it. Most of other links (except wiki page for China) are secondaries as well. While not all of them are reliable, what about that Guardian link for Russia? Tacit Murky (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * My sincere apologies. I saw that http://unblocksites.co/ was used a few times, and Wikipedia, and a discussion forum, all of which fail Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, and I didn't focus whether any sources did meet the criteria. It looks like the Guardian article's been put back. I don't see any others in the paragraph about censorship. Did I miss anything? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, will this one will do for China? It says: «The reason for the censorship is that the government believes that removing pornographic materials will ensure that Chinese citizens are "hardworking" and "moral." Xhampster [sic] is only one of several sites that are blocked.» Tacit Murky (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, websitepulse.com is a blog, which is also considered a self-published source. It's important to note the difficulty of verifying whether a site is blocked at any given time, which is why the Censorship paragraph describes things in terms of the actions governments have taken, not whether they're blocked at this very point in time. It might not currently be blocked in China, as well; it doesn't appear to be DNS poisoned, at least. —0xF8E8 (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

July'2016 edits
Was there a problem with adding a link to Sex Factor with short description? That article have a link here, but occasional readers of this one may stay ignorant about «SF». It's not «trivia and repetition»; besides, «CDC» campaign is mentioned in the text, while being much less known for the public, so what makes «SF» that special to ignore it?

BTW, shortened «CDC» description doesn't make up a complete reason to start a charity campaign without mentioning the failed donation attempt. Unless Malik Shabazz consider this as a bluff or a PR-spin. I propose an addendum with some alternative wording. Tacit Murky (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * With respect to The Sex Factor, I deleted the paragraph because it was repetitive. Please see the last paragraph of the "History" section, which already mentions the show.


 * If you want the article to say more about "Cancer Doesn't Care", please find reliable secondary sources about the charity. A press release from xHamster's parent company is not a reliable source. See WP:SELFSOURCE. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 10:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I see now. Yes, I missed it, because it was hidden in the midst of the last paragraph and is completely unrelated to the rest of the text there. I think it should be moved out for better visibility. To keep chronological order intact, the paragraph should be dissected. Care to do so?


 * As of now, there are few RS's for their activities other than their own; some of secondaries closely follow original PR-release wording, others being known for spam, like the Examiner.com with their article («Cancer doesn't care so why do we»). I don't think we need stand-alone article for «CDC» (the move is not that important and popular yet and may never be), but in this article there must be an explanation detailed enough for the reader at least to understand the name: «Cancer doesn't care» (whether you are porn star or not), that's why info on the failed donation is there for. We can't judge it as being false just because the source is unreliable, unless directly proven so. Tacit Murky (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * And it looks like another editor agrees with me that "Cancer Doesn't Care" needs a better source than an xHamster press release. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, and what about this proposal? Tacit Murky (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Stories
xHamster stopped the stories section in December 2020. All the user story posts have gone. I tried to make a note but it was quickly removed. Could someone else do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:A0F:501:B459:7613:F28E:4042 (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if you had used the template edit semi-protected as is expected to request a change to this article, we still wouldn't have a reliable source that this is the case. Do you have such sources? Also, please explain the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No reliable source as such. Only their own suggestions site and blog where people ask for stories to be restored. I had hoped that pointing out that stories are no longer there would simple. Like describing the sky as blue. The citation for the presence of stories on the other hand only shows that they used to be there.  2A00:23C8:A0F:501:2451:8B9B:E73B:DD07 (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)