Template talk:Infobox adult biography

Creation as Merger
This template was created by including all fields from and. While I have included all the fields in the creations of this template, I do not believe all should be included. I support the future removal of questionable fields such as "natural bust" and "blood type".

Note: Female adult bio used the word "photo" while Male adult bio used the word "image" for the same field. While this template suggests using the field "image", it is backward compatible with the "photo" field. Neitherday 15:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger and Redirect Proposal
I propose Template:Female adult bio and Template:Male adult bio be redirected here. Neitherday 15:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? As you note, the two templates do not have the same fields. That seems to be a strong argument against merging them. What are your arguments for merging them? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The only field that doesn't apply to both males and females is "natural bust", which should arguable be removed anyway. The only field name conflict is Image/Photo, which is easy to deal with. Why is there a need for two separate templates? Neitherday 16:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as why the merger is necessary: Having one template standardizes how porn stars are treated in wikipedia. There is no reason to treat female porn stars differently than male porn stars. Neitherday 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect, I think you haven't actually used these templates in many (or any?) articles, otherwise I believe you would have noticed some more key differences. The male template's "measurements" parameter becomes one measurement, penis size, which would look rather odd on a female porn star's infobox. Conversely, male porn stars are never described by their bust-wait-hips measurements, or the size of their bust, while for female porn stars, these are fairly standard, most official stars' web sites display these measurements. The male template has a blue background, the female one has a pink background. The Eurobabeindex only lists female porn stars, but that's less important, I guess. If you can manage to make the template reflect these differences, we can merge, but not otherwise. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The "penis size" can still go under "measurements", as it does in this template. The "measurements" field does not enforce any format or specific measurement. Changing the displayed title from "measurements" to "penis size" seems a bit easter-eggy even in the male template. The Eurobabesindex field will only show up if it is used, although I question if the index is notable enough to be included at all as it doesn't seem notable enough to have it's own article. There is no need for different colours for men and women.


 * If you test this template out by copying the template from a male or female porn star to a sandbox and removing "male" or "female" from the template name, you will see that there is no change other than the words "penis size" now read "measurements" and potentially the colour (this template now uses pink, but that is very easily changed).


 * Does that adequately address your concerns? Neitherday 17:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and provided examples below. Neitherday 17:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not addressed. But thanks for adding the examples.
 * 1) You picked a male template without penis size. Had you used one with, the difference would be obvious, as it would read Measurements, though providing one measurement, and would not link to Penis size.
 * 2) You'll notice the IAFD link for Ron Jeremy provides distinctly different results when followed from the first template, and from the second. This is because the second uses gender=f, which he isn't.
 * 3) The color pink and blue are gender associated. See Pink. When associated with males, the color pink can imply homosexuality. See Pink.
 * 4) My gosh, we don't have a free licensed picture for Annie Sprinkle?!? That's a crime! She's one of the few people I'm almost sure would be happy to provide one. Off to the email! :-)

There is a famous quotation about equality in the workplace, sometimes attributed to Gloria Steinem, sometimes Florynce Kennedy that starts with: "There are very few jobs that actually require a penis or vagina." Pornography is clearly one of those jobs. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That said, a merger isn't impossible, you'd merely have to add a "gender=" parameter, and make those parameters that are different between the two templates conditional upon it, and then make the redirects from the existing templates set that parameter. If you do that, I won't mind. But you have to do it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made the changes and added the parameters you requested. How do you make a redirect set a parameter? Neitherday 19:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. :-) Good question. I guess what I probably meant was that the existing templates could invoke the common template, with gender added, something like but I haven't tested it ... er ... is that my mother calling? Must dash ... :-) Good luck! :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely merge them to make it gender-neutral. Then add section for including gender. 71.139.16.171 (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Suport merge. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Examples
Without changing any attributes or fields, this is how the templates would look after redirecting. I've used the bios of well known stars Ron Jeremy and Annie Sprinkle as examples. The first template for each is before redirect, the second template for each is what would show up after redirect.

blood?
what in the world does Blood mean? Kingturtle (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See Template talk:Female adult bio. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for aditional fields
I believe the fields Piercings and Tattoos would be appropriate to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbhp (talk • contribs) 21:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm... why? We have a good many fields already, and piercings & tattoo information would fluctuate too much. I can see additional fields being useful (for instance, breaking the image field out into Image and Imagesize similar to how Infobox Actor does it) but not those two. Tabercil (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Orientation
Let me direct your attention to a discussion at Template talk:Female adult bio; if the decision there is to remove, then the same will be done with the field on this template. Tabercil (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Penis
Umm, is the parameter measureispenis vandalism? If not, what does it mean? Martin 22:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I've just realised why this is called the adult bio template :) Martin 22:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding Wikiporno
Is there a process by which other external informational sites are added to the bottom of the template? I'm a contributor at Wikiporno which is very similar to Wikipedia, and endeavors to be a comprehensive information source for pornography. It is similar to the other external links that already exist in the template, but is more similar to Wikipedia in spirit and intent. Anyone have any opinion on adding it, or have an idea of how we could start that process? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trapfish (talk • contribs) 02:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Haven't heard any feedback on this, so I'm assuming it's okay to add, test on a few pages that use the template, and then monitor talk pages for any complaints that it is not actually valuable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trapfish (talk • contribs) 17:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the proper guidance is to look at the guidelines on external links as they also apply to links in an infobox. I don't feel that Wikiporno adds any unique information to wikipedia beyond information that doesn't have to comply with wikipedia's strict rules on biographies of living people. You can also get feedback from the Wikipedia Project Pornography group about this matter. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about Wikiporno except what I saw during the 15 minutes I spent browsing it. For many performers, all it contains is a filmography. I don't think it adds a great deal beyond iafd, which is subject to some degree of verification. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Morbidthoughts. This should definitely not be done. Valrith (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, nothing there which looks like it's of utility. Keep the link off. Tabercil (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Broken
This edit removed the classes "vcard", "fn", "note" & "nickname", thereby removing the emitted microformat, despite a warning in the documentation, not to do this. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Links to AFDb
The McAfee security feature says that site is very dangerous. Is it? Varlaam (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Links to external links
I propose we move iafd, egafd, bgafd, imdb, afdb, eurobabeindex away from the infobox to the external links section as we did with all other infoboxes (actor, person, television, film etc.). Copying from Infobox film's documentation:

Discussions about the fate of these links took place in numerous places over some time, with a number of people advocating removal of all external links from the infobox, if not the article as a whole. Others spoke of the value of having at least a link to IMDb in the infobox. Eventually, a far from undisputed consensus arose to remove all external links from the infobox and to move them to the External links section where appropriate in view of the External links guideline.

Important points towards this consensus included fact that the infobox could not include all of the available links and that it would be inappropriate to pick and choose one or a few of those links over others. Suggestions that losing access to the most useful of the available links (typically IMDb) would damage the usefulness of film articles were not found persuasive by many since such links could still be included in the External links section and the table of contents linking to the external links section having all of the useful external links is adjacent the infobox. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. Before we do that, it would be great to replace uses of this template for non-pornographic models and non-pornographic actresses.  I wrote a script which generates a list of articles to check, after first eliminating articles that match certain keywords (e.g., pornographic actress, adult actor, ...).  These links actually help with that process, since an actor with a page at afdb is almost certainly an adult actress.  I have found a large number of Greek fashion models are using this template, and some politicians (which is usually vandalism to add the politician's penis measurements).  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  19:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I requested a bot to perform the task. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "measurements" from template
Per this discussion at WP:BLPN and this one at WP:ANI, I suggest that the inclusion of measurements in this template is not in keeping with our policies WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP. From what I have seen in the cases of both gay male porn performers and straight female Japanese porn performers, this information is either unsourced or sourced to dubious sources such as distributors of porn videos. I take WP:BLP to imply that personal details such as these would only be relevant if the performer was notable because of their penis or breasts and the information could be reliably sourced. (Notable in this case would be in the context of other porn performers, so perhaps it would be relevant for a male porn performer with an exceptionally large penis, but the size of all porn performers body parts are not notable.) If there are reliable sources which discuss the body parts in question and the performer is notable because of those body parts, this should probably be discussed in the body of the article rather than in an infobox. For these reasons, I propose that "measurements" and "measureispenis" be removed from the infobox. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support removing body part measurements from the infobox. As mentioned above, such measurements are unlikely to be reliably (i.e., indepently!) sourced, and are of dubious encyclopedic relevance anyway. In the very exceptional case that they are relevant, e.g. because the person has the biggest body part on record, this can be mentioned and sourced in the main text.  Sandstein   21:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll see you measurements and raise you height, weight, eye_color, hair_color, and skin_color. All of these fields are extremely trivial and have little to no relevance in a biography. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot bring myself to vote on this. Sometimes Wikipedia can prove to be a deep joy at the end of a long, hard (no pun intended) day; this is just such an occasion - is anyone seriously debating whether penis size should be included in an info box on a living (or dead) person in a serious project? Amazing  - I'd be happy with the latter - is anyone taking this seriously? You, Sandstein, should know better. Giacomo Returned  22:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you realize how serious this is. Surely if such things are disputed we can simply give a confidence interval or some other statistic? People need to know these things. Nevard (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm amending my comments to add the undocumented fields shoe size and blood. What relevance do these have in any biography? These two fields are the most trivial of trivial information. —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Blood types play an important role in Japanese culture as a substitute for zodiac signs. The key role that shoe sizes play in British culture is obvious from the fact that it is one of the first thing you are asked when you call the fire brigade. Hans Adler 16:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Even in in Japan, blood type is simply trivia. More of a footnote like the zodiac signs, and zodiac signs are not included in biography infoboxes and articles either. As for shoe size, huh? Why would someone calling the fire department need to know anything about shoe sizes? Again, that is the most extreme of trivial information and you wouldn't find this type of information in an ordinary biography, much less an encyclopedia article. —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of this. (Sorry, I couldn't find a video.) Looking for this, I learned that shoe size is also relatively important in the US.  Hans Adler 17:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If parodies are the only think you can come up with to demonstrate the relevance of shoe sizes in biographies, then you need not bother as you are proving the exact opposite. —Farix (t &#124; c) 17:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ↓Open your eyes.↓ I think it's not unreasonable to expect a little sense of humour even from Wikipedia editors. Hans Adler 18:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not when you are using your "sense of humour" to a attempt to mock other editors, like myself. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did no such thing. You really should have your sense of humour examined. Hans Adler 18:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You should put away with your personal attacks and apologize for your mockery before this goes to WP:ANI. —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, please, let us put aside this tangential discussion. I think there is a very serious matter that is being overlooked here. These size measurements under discussion pertain to a template used for adult film stars who are typically above-average in bust and/or penile dimension. The listing of such measurements can cause jealousy in the vast majority of our readers, who are average or even below average in size. Also, the flaunting of these measurements could cause marital difficulties with some couples, possibly leading even to divorce in extreme cases, when one partner seeks "greener pastures" as it were. I am no legal expert, but it is not difficult to imagine this template brought up as evidence in divorce court, and Wikipedia being held liable. Monetary penalties resulting from such court cases could potentially bankrupt a non-profit project such as Wikipedia. Gentlemen, please. For the sake of the future existence of Wikipedia, this template must be deleted. Dekkappai (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Dekkappai, you appear to be following the advice you gave in your "retirement" message. If you have something to add to the discussion other than facetious statements, feel free to say it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Dekkappai (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Absolutely ridiculous. And yes, height, weight, eye colour and hair colour in infoboxes are equally ridiculous and should also be removed. Hans Adler 22:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support removing these as trivial and unencyclopaedic: why the hell is Wikipedia serving as a record of porn star's penis sizes? Support removing all the other fields mentioned by Farix above; in fact, support deleting this template entirely, but that's a discussion for another day. Robofish (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support removal of porn-specific measurements. However, general "measurements" is included in infobox model.  Hence, I believe there should be a wider discussion to look at infobox model as well.  If measureispenis is removed, then this template is essentially redundant to that one, given the general consensus regarding the removal of film database links in infoboxes (see thread directly above). Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  01:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Numbers like these are rarely verifiable and they do not stay the same throughout a persons life. Sadly height, weight etc are still active fields in Infobox person and that fact lead to this farce of an article 6'3" being create recently. MarnetteD | Talk 01:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And some measurements don't stay the same through out the actors participation in a single film. If I recall, there was an attempt made at one point in time to merge this template (and the model template) with infobox person.  I think the general concept that you don't need to use every parameter in the infobox is one which is quite frequently ignored.  Yes, measurements can be notable for athletes and models, when they are extremely tall, short, heavy, ...  But as you point out, such measurements are rarely verifiable and frequently change.  Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. These claims are almost entirely sourced to promotional material. and most of the statistics vary significantly over time. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Also support the deletion of this template. It is also highly probable that any article which currently uses the template is inappropriate for Wikipedia. These articles should be targed for deletion-- judicious use of notability/reliable source arguments should prevent the deletion of trvial-- but acceptable subjects-- while allowing us to delete articles in this subject area. There are projects which cover such subjects. Wikipedia is not one of them. Dekkappai (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The subject does not have to be notable for having these measurements; this appears to be an assumption. Clearly these measurements are relevant to this subject’s occupation; however they do need to be adequately referenced and if they are not adequately referenced then it should be removed from the article. Most of the reasons here do not appear to be a good reason to remove the parameter altogether and more a case of WP:ITANNOYSME. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of specific fields to be removed
Which parameters do you remove then? I need a list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say measureispenis for a start. Then, I think the next step would be to see if there are any parameters in this template which are not in infobox model.  Many of the articles using this template are about "adult models", so it would make sense to convert those to the infobox model template.  The articles using this template which are about "adult actors" would probably be converted to say infobox actor, which has already been merged with infobox person.  If I recall, the last TFD for infobox model closed as keep, although there are good arguments for eliminating that one as well.  That's my view of how we should proceed from here.  Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  22:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We can also remove gender. All other infoboxes don't use it as obvious or not important to be in the infobox. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "gender" appears to be used as a switch for creating URLs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At a minimum, we appear to have consensus for removal of "measurements" and "measureispenis". Personally, I support the removal of all body part measurements from this template per Sandstein, but further discussion is probably warranted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Almost redundant to Infobox:person?
With the removal of these parameters, is there a reason why this template couldn't be replaced by Infobox person? --AussieLegend (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. There are some more fields we could remove I guess like skin_color, eye color and hair color. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Tabercil (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Um... Thirded(?). Lately an IP has been adding a skin color to many of the articles that use this template and they keep getting reverted.  One of the reasons that I've seen given for the revert is "irrelevant".  That begs the question, when is it relevant then?  Personally, I don't really see the point in having the field.  If it's relevant to the person's article, it will be pointed out in the article somehow.  So why have the field?  Dismas |(talk) 00:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, skin_color seems a bit much. As for eye_color, and hair_color, those are in Infobox model, so if they are removed, we should remove them from both templates.  Otherwise, I would say this template is basically redundant to .  Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  06:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree skin_color should go, and for the same reason that Dismas gives. In terms of Infobox:model, the key difference is that the measurements field for Model will likely have reliable sources whereas Adult Biography tends to have very suspicious ones... so I don't think we can do a global replace of Adult with model. Now if we were talking changing Adult for Person, that's something which I could support... Tabercil (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

We need a bot to remove skin_color from all transclusions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this something that Yobot can do? Tabercil (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to learn more about AWB and have been looking into how to clear out an infobox field. If nobody minds waiting a couple days (busy in real life until Sunday night), I'd like to take a stab at it.  Dismas |(talk) 01:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yobot could do it but I will be inactive till end of May for personal reasons. I can try to write the code somewhere and ask someone else to run it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm... I've already started removing the field using AWB.  Dismas |(talk) 19:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfect! -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Pages that still use skin_colour can be found in Category:Adult biography with deprecated parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How is that category populated? Just curious from a technical perspective...  Dismas |(talk) 03:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Some if conditions in the infobox's code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There - all done as that cat Magioladitis comes back as empty. Now I did see some interesting bits while I was going through... some articles that used this template even though the subject is not a porn star. For instance, Sanjay Chandra and George Arnold (settler) just to name a couple. Those ones I changed to Infobox:Person but I bet there's quite a few more in there... Tabercil (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw a few of those as well. They included some rapper (forgot the name), Taya Parker (though she was in Penthouse), and Lacey Conner.  Dismas |(talk) 00:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One more reason to compltelly replace this infobox with infobox person as we did for actors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I also support replacing the infobox. That simplifies matters, prevents unintended (or sneeky) BLP violations in the source code, and prevents the proliferation of inappropriate parameters. Hans Adler 10:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I added tracking for "natural bust", "orientation" and "shoe size". They have been removed per previous discussions but they are still present in some pages. Please someone help remove them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Flushed. Tabercil (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sending you my wikilove. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Gender" is only used to define the colour of the infobox. Do we agree to remove it as well? All other infoboxes don't have something like that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Additionally, it presents challenges when trying to decide what to do with transsexual people.  Dismas |(talk) 10:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed gender which defines abovestyle per Infobox person and discussion. Added tracking category. Please someone clean up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think that merging this Infobox (and model for that matter) with infobox person would be best. --Kumioko (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, does someone have a running list of the paramters we are removing for this (and if possible other) infobox? Also, does Infobox person already support all the fields from this infobox?--Kumioko (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Infobox person supports all the basic parameters (name, birth-death date and place, nationality, ethnicity, image, caption, height, weight, spouse, website, alias) I could transform this infobox to use infobox person but step 1 is to remove unnecessary colouring. After that we have to discuss if we really need "hair colour" and "eye colour" for adult actors. IF we remove them then spelling is useless too. My opinion is that we don't. After that we are left only with "number of films". -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed all the deprecated parameters as well as some invalid ones that were never in the template to begin with. IMO we could probably keep eye color but hair color is pretty pointless because so many women color their hair and so many men shave it off it makes it kinda senseless IMO. I don't really think spelling is needed regardless of whether we transition this template or not. Its not populated on very many and some of those are either appear incorrect or unverifiable. With regards to number of films I think there are enough other actor/actress/performer type individuals to warrant adding this to the person template if its not there already. --Kumioko (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wouldn't object if we moved it to the Person infobox wholesale and just dropped the extra fields. Most (if not all) of the entries have links to IAFD which readily provide film details, same as for regular actors with links to IMDB. Hair colour I agree with Kumioko on, and eye colour can be considered a flexible field as well given that we have coloured contacts these days. Tabercil (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree in removing "hair colour" and "eye colour". If they are no objections I ll add them to the list with the deprecated parameters along with "spelling" and start removing them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No complaints here. Hair and eye color are also apparant in Infobox model so if we do remove them we should consider starting a discussion about it on that template as well. --Kumioko (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Deprecate number_of_films and use Infobox person instead?
We are now in the last step of this merge. I suggest that we replace this infobox with Infobox person by moving "number_of_films" away from the infobox. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Number of films is an important parameter as these performers tend to appear in a larger amount of films than “conventional” actors and therefore it is relevant enough to be included. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Relevant parameters to be included

 * The subjects tend to be adult actresses/actors and may also be adult models, therefore there should be a combination of parameters which reflect both of these. Women colouring their hair, men shaving their hair and coloured contacts are not good arguments to remove them, this just seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The subjects’ appearances are relevant to their careers therefore hair_colour and eye_colour should be included, both of these parameters appear to have been removed without consensus.
 * A subject’s skin colour is a matter of opinion more than anything and should probably be left out.
 * I also propose the inclusion of years_active, for obvious reasons as per all other biographical infoboxes. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Explain to me how "years active" is anything but subjective as well? Do you count the period from first work to last, the 3 day work after a 5 year hiatus? I don't see any reason for "years active". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If the eye colour or hair colour of a performer is relevant to their popularity or importance, discuss it in the body of the article. If you have trouble finding sources which mention why it is important, perhaps it isn't. Leave it out of the infobox. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "The subjects’ appearances are relevant to their careers therefore hair_colour and eye_colour should be included, both of these parameters appear to have been removed without consensus." The only thing that I can add to this is that it appears that no matter whether you fill out (with a citation or not) the hair & eye color portion of this current template, it never, ever shows up in the article, which always seemed odd to me.
 * "A subject’s skin colour is a matter of opinion more than anything and should probably be left out." Skin color might be subjective, but their ethnic or racial background usually isn't subjective.
 * As for "years_active", I've seen other infoboxes (maybe the one that's usually used for a more mainstream model?) use this parameter, but it's pretty standard to include information of how long an adult actor, actress, etc. has been in the adult business in the actual text of the article. Guy1890 (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not understand how years active would be subjective, it is the period the subject has been active for, this would be the same as any other actor, singer, comedian or businessperson that is on Wikipedia. If there is a hiatus the infobox can reflect this as well such as the case of Marlon Brando, where there is two periods of years active. What do you mean 3 day work? A film is a film regardless of the period of filming.
 * Would anyone disagree that is would be helpful for the reader to have the eye colour or hair colour of an adult model on the infobox, same as it is on the model infobox?
 * I was not disputing the inclusion of ethnicity by the way, I was merely confirming some of the previous arguments about skin colour not being included as it was not discussed in great detail.
 * My point was that it would be helpful to the reader to have the years active, hair colour and eye colour within the infobox, regardless of if it is in the text/main body of the article or not. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I just thought I'd add some technical info here for some potential better understanding of WP guidelines. When a field, like hair or eye color here, are removed from a template, they are not always removed from the articles en masse. In the grand scheme of things, these edits are generally thought of as being more work than they are worth. The info will no longer appear to the reader, so removing them just creates more work for the server without much benefit. When performing other edits, I often remove them as well since I'm already editing the article in the first place.
 * As for my opinion on those two, I don't see their importance. Especially since they can change on a whim. Dismas |(talk) 00:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Field addition: Number_of_mainstream_films
I propose that we add a field for the number of mainstream (non-adult) films that an actor/actress has appeared in. Crossover status is a part of porn notability and more and more performers are gaining this distinction. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Template:Infobox person
This message is to notify you that there is an RfC ongoing on whether to add pronunciation info to, a discussion which may also affect this template. Your comments on the matter are appreciated. The discussion can be found here. Thanks! 0x0077BE ( talk ·  contrib ) 17:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove weight and height parameters from Infobox Adult biography
I'd like to follow up on the above discussion (Proposal to remove measurements from template). with a proposal to adopt "Infobox person" as the default template for adult actors going forward, and dispense with the special template. Specifically, I am proposing this version as meeting the needs of the vast majority of related articles:
 * Template:Infobox_person [Original name was "Adopt Infobox Person for adult biographies" but that was confusing as noted below].

I'd like to propose that height & weight not be used in the infoboxes on adult entertainer articles. If these performers are to be treated as other actors and entertainers, then I suggest that the same format of presenting the infobox contents is used. These intricate details are not included in the infoboxes of the mainstream actors that I checked.

The background for this proposal is at Talk:Aurora Snow, where I questioned the inclusion of measurements, and was pointed here. I also question the inclusion of ethnicity, as it does not appear in infoboxes of mainstream actors either. Please voice your opinion below. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - One can't propose deleting an entire existing template, replacing it with another template, then restrict the use of two or three parameters at that same new template (that already exist at both templates in the first place)...that's just silly. The proposed replacement template also does not contain the parameter "number_of_films", which is pretty standard in adult film performer BLPs. Guy1890 (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I edited above to make the proposal more focused. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The only one of these parameters that I could reasonably see eliminating at this time is weight, since (as noted below) it can obviously fluctuate over time. There's nothing wrong with using an interview or something like IAFD for a non-controversial citation of height either. As for ethnicity, the USA is gradually becoming more & more diverse over time. I myself have three different ethnicities in my background, and many of my relatives have even more than I do. Guy1890 (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Height and weight are almost always sourced to the (unreliable) IAFD. In addition, weight fluctuates -- that's just a fact of life. Unless a performer is notable for her/his height or weight, it should be omitted. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Ethnicity is mentioned in the title of this section but not the formal proposal. I would recommend a separate discussion of that issue, as AfDs have found that ethnicity may be relevant. See List of African-American pornographic actors and List of Asian pornographic actors. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment. I removed "ethnicity" from the scope of this proposal. The reason I originally had it there is because this is intricate detail typically cited to an interview or another unreliable source. I've seen combinations of "Greek, Welsh, Cherokee and German" and other such like entries which look completely made up. Saving it for another time. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)