Talk:Pornographic film actor

Requested move 13 May 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There's a consensus against moving the article to the proposed title. Opposers present an argument based on the adjective "pornographic" being used on a person, and "film" still being the recognized term for the medium regardless of digitization. While supporters cite WP:CONCISE, consensus leans toward the current title for precision. The alternative "pornography actor" was proposed but did not reach enough support. (non-admin closure) Feeglgeef (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Pornographic film actor → Pornographic actorPornographic actor – More WP:CONCISE (and most pornography isn't shot on film anymore; the word doesn't really seem to be helping here). The shorter form is what is already used as a disambiguation phrase on Wikipedia for eight articles. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. 162 etc. (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Whether porn is shot on actual film isn't the point. We still use the words film, filmmaking, and film industry in the age of digital video.
  More importantly, "pornographic" refers to a genre of media (films, books, images, etc.), not people. Pornography actor would be a valid title, but "pornographic actor" is too informal in tone.
  And sneakily renaming pages such as Jennifer White (pornographic actress) to bolster your argument doesn't help the case for a global change IMO.
  As Paine Ellsworth points out, the current title is concise enough and more WP:PRECISE than the suggested title. It is also WP:CONSISTENT with other articles with "pornographic film" in the title. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2026 (UTC) edited 04:53, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  That wasn't because I was being sneaky and trying to bolster my argument, and it didn't involve "pages such as" – it was only one page. If I recall correctly, I moved Jennifer White (pornographic film actress) to Jennifer White (pornographic actress) before noticing and thinking about the title of this article. All pornographic actor titles and all other pornographic actress articles used the shorter phrase already; that one was simply an isolated inconsistency. I didn't do that to bolster the argument here, and didn't even mention actress articles here. I thought about mentioning it, but that seemed like an unnecessary detail and it didn't involve quite the same phrase. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  Fair enough; I've struck out that comment. However, from what I can see, all pages using the phrase "pornographic actress" in the title are redirects, not actual articles. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  There are three: Linda Wong (pornographic actress), Gina Rodriguez (pornographic actress), and Jennifer White (pornographic actress). As mentioned before, there are eight with "pornographic actor" (and I just opened an RM discussion proposing to reduce that to five). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, but as I already stated, you were the one who moved Jennifer White (pornographic actress) to that title. So using it to support your argument is a bit underhanded IMO. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't use that topic to support my argument. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  Then what is the point of listing those three article titles? ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  I listed them because you appeared to want that information – you said you were only able to find redirects, so I gave you the list of all of the ones that aren't redirects. This was after you started accusing me of bad-faith behaviour, which you have now done again by saying I'm being "underhanded" and "using it to support [my] argument", and it is getting a bit tiresome. I now notice you appear to be who recently moved that article to Jennifer White (pornographic film actress), which you didn't mention. But I won't accuse you of being sneaky about that; it is just something that seems to have recently happened. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  If I had wanted that information I would have asked for it directly. The only point I can see in listing examples here is to prove something about the usage of a certain phrase in the encyclopedia. Apologies for any misunderstanding. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  You said "from what I can see, all pages using the phrase 'pornographic actress' in the title are redirects, not actual articles". I suppose I assumed you were interested in knowing whether that was a true statement or not. Thank you for clarifying that you did not actually want that information. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  It was a true statement from what I could see. As in, all the pages displayed on the first page of search results I linked to were redirects, and I simply didn't feel like digging any further. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: The article used to be at Pornographic actor, but was moved to Pornographic film actor long ago by a long-gone editor, with comment "Actors are not pornographic". So I guess that's an oppose !vote from the great e-beyond. DMacks (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  And I support that change. "Pornographic" refers to a type of media, not to a person. You wouldn't call silent film actors "silent actors", would you? ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC) edited 22:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Support. Yes, they are still called "pornographic films" in some situations, but I'm confident it's very uncommon outside technical contexts. I also know we do still use the word "film" in contexts where we no longer typically use literal film, but it seems unnecessary in this particular context—Jamie Lee Curtis is probably better described as a "horror actress" than as a "horror film actress", for instance (though she's really neither given her appearances in other stuff; she was just the first person to come to my mind as an actor/actress associated with a particular genre). I also think the fact that WP:CONCISE supports it is substantial in this context. LieutenantZipp (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not that uncommon. See recent news headlines such as:

• "Ferry company apologises after children left ‘screaming’ by pornographic film" – The Guardian
• "Jesse Jane, Pornographic Film Star, Dies at 43" – The New York Times
• "Zack Snyder reveals he wants to make a "pornographic film" – Digital Spy

Wikipedia might refer to Curtis as a "horror actress", but not a "horrific actress". Similarly, "pornography actor" is more appropriate than "pornographic actor" (and even more WP:CONCISE). ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

To me, something seems off about "pornography actor", although I'm not sure why. We currently have 9 article titles that contain "pornographic actor", but none that contain "pornography actor". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

"Pornographic actor/actress" seems off, because people are not pornographic. Straying into WP:FORUM territory here, but labeling performers themselves as "pornographic" seems part and parcel of a politically conservative drive to dehumanize sex workers that a supposedly neutral encyclopedia should have no part in. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, two of the sources currently cited in the article (Griffith et al. 2012 and Griffith et al. 2013) use the term "pornography actor/actress" in their titles, while none use the term "pornographic actor/actress" ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Our own article about pornographic films is titled Pornographic film, which includes traditional photographic film as well as "home video, DVDs, mobile devices, Internet pornography, Internet download, or cable TV, in addition to other media". ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I placed a notice at WT:WikiProject Pornography to inform the Wikiproject about this discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I have placed notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality to inform those Wikiprojects about this discussion. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sincere apology to the nom; however, pornographic film indicates a genre, a type of medium, an industry, a business. Pornographic is just an adjective. One wouldn't say, "She's a pornographic person," or "He's a pornographic son of a gun." An actor in like manner should not be described as "pornographic". An actor performs their art within a medium, and "film" has come to denote the general medium no matter what the video format might be, videotape, DVD, interactive, and so on. This title should remain just as it is. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 03:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you; this is what I have been trying to explain. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  You're welcome! Of course the challenge here is that there are no specific P&Gs to cover this. The nom has enlisted CONCISE, which seems to be the only one to help their proposal. So as an argument you and I must enlist WP:PRECISE, because this article title is as concise as it needs to be. And any dabs that do not include the full "pornographic film" genre, such as Jenny White's, need to be corrected. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 18:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support move to Pornography actor, which has none of the problems associated with the current title or proposed alternstive; current title second choice. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is not, in fact, the actor who is pornographic but the type of "film" they perform in. In the shortened phrase porn star, porn is understood to be short for pornography. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dubious history claim

Our history section starts with Production of risqué films commenced with the start of photography. However, still photography predates motion picture photography by a while. It may make sense to claim that risqué photography commenced with the start of photography, or that risqué films started with the start of motion picture photography itself, but as stated, it doesn't make sense. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2026 (UTC)