Talk:Erotic animation

Eveready Harton in Buried Treasure

Just thought I'd better report that the video file for "Eveready Harton in Buried Treasure" is displaying as a link to the WP page File:Eveready Harton in Buried Treasure.ogv rather than embedding the video. I don't know whether the problem has anything to do with this note on the file's page:

Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks... I've requested that it be permitted. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

And that permission has been granted. –Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Move page to Cartoon Pornography

(Personal attack removed)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it does not (as claimed) duplicate information in other articles. Of the two supposed examples given in the nomination:

• Erotic comics is a completely distinct topic: comics are not animation, and animation is not comics.
• The actual topic of Cartoon pornography is unclear, and hasn't been resolved in more than a decade. It seems to be more a duplication of Rule 34 as applied to cartoon characters than about the production of erotic films using animation, but it's hard to tell what it's supposed to be since it says so little. It's spent most of its existence as a WP:COATRACK duplicating Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors, and since that was fixed it's merely an unsourced stub. So this article is not at all a duplication of that; it's an attempt to create an encyclopedic article about a more clearly defined, related topic. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@JasonAQuest: it was me who nominated the article for deletion. But after reading your comment, and after reading few articles on the subject carefully; I totally agtrr with you. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Merger

As far as the suggestion of the merger, I'm not 100% sure on how exactly this is different from Cartoon pornography insofar as they both quantify the apparent same identifiable topic. User:Usernamekiran added said tags to both articles, and they appeared to be doing themselves more as a maintenance task, rather than any view in one way or the other. Tutelary (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tutelary: I dont see the different as well. But apparently, the user who denied speedy deletion sees a difference. I added {{merge to}}, and {{merge from}} on the articles. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

But Tutelary has argued that they're not the same thing, asserted that "cartoon" encompasses both animation and comics. That's what prompted me to work on this article under a separate title. I see comics and animation as two different mediums (as reflected by the long-standing separate articles for adult comics and adult animation, separate WikiProjects, etc). The "cartoon pornography" article seems an attempt to synthesize several topics (certain kinds of erotic art, certain erotic animation, applying Rule 34 to animated characters, Hentai, and the application of obscenity laws to imaginary subjects) into one article. But each of these is a topic worth covering in a separate article... and they now are. The meta-topic article hasn't worked, and shows no sign of becoming anything other than a duplication of other articles or remaining a stub. The issue then is what to do about it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Usernamekiran intends to merge the articles regardless of our thoughts. That would be disruptive so shortly after applying the tags, and without waiting for other editors' thoughts on the matter. There were other editors who edited the article who should be heard, as well as those who have it on their watchlist. Tutelary (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@JasonAQuest: first of all we should find all the articles which discuss similar topics. Deleting/moving some content would be first thing to do. Once this is done, we can think about what to do next. :-)

@Tutelary: everybody knows about my intentions. It was me who put the signs. I'm not going to do it without discussion. If I had that intention, I would have already done it. PS: don't touch the image I added. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I will be fine with having this discussion, but I am not fine with you acting as to immediately merge the articles when you know said merging is controversial, and without using the appropriate page to do so. If it were any other article, with little participants and little interest, and a very clear reason to merge, then there would be no issue. But I do object to said merger without adequate explanation as to why this cannot be solved. Since JasonAQuest sees Cartoon pornography as a stand alone image category, and erotic animation to be a distinct topic of its own, but also encompassing cartoon pornography. So it will be a contentious merger, and you will have to follow procedures in WP:MERGECLOSE, which will need an uninvolved editor/administrator to weigh consensus and arguments after an appropriate amount of time has passed. Tutelary (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tutelary and JasonAQuest: I think merger is not even necessary. But the way you communicated with me about performing a self revert, it felt sort of aggressive. So I had to respond the way I did, to stall; in the hopes you would calm down after a little while.

However, there are a few articles which are connected with each-other. Some of content of these articles need to be moved to another articles, and a little consolidation is required as well. This needs a good discussion within the editors. It also needs to be discussed what type of porn goes in which article. Hentai, animated porn but not hentai, comics, solo (stand-alone/random) nude images, rule 34 an so on. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"Since JasonAQuest sees Cartoon pornography as a stand alone image category, and erotic animation to be a distinct topic of its own, but also encompassing cartoon pornography." I'm not sure what this means, but it isn't an accurate reflection of how I see it. Frankly I don't know what "cartoon pornography" is supposed to mean, which is the point I first raised on that article's Talk page. It seems to mean different things to different people: maybe it's erotic illustrations, maybe it's fan art of Homer and Marge fucking, maybe it's any animated porn, maybe it's Justin Bieber's adult coloring book, maybe it's the whole field of hentai. I've been doing some research looking for articles about it, and they reflect that same scattershot understanding: lots of people use the phrase, but they're not all talking about the same thing. (The ambiguous meaning of "cartoon" is at the heart of that.) So it's little wonder that the article has spent a decade as just a stub or coatrack, while people argue on its Talk page about whether the images being added reflect their conception of what it means. I'm beginning to think that the best use of Cartoon pornography would be as a disambiguation page, directing people to the various topics it might refer to. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@JasonAQuest: couple of articles from this group are sort of coatrack, yes. But we have to find all the related articles, and observe their "scope". Only after that, we would be able to discuss further events including a possible disamb page, or a merger, or just moving some content from one article to another. At this point, i have no idea where this will lead to. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I do apologize for not responding to this in a timely manner. I had work and that took a good bit of my time. Nonetheless, the reason why I said that JasonAQuest, is that on Cartoon Pornography's talk page, that's the way you tried to explain it to me. In this edit specifically, you said I don't know how to make this any more clear: I don't think we should have information about static drawings in this article. which makes me think that the two are distinctly similar and deserving of both separate articles. Even if the article is short, if they are explaining two different things, then that would be fine. Also, "erotic animation", according to our animation article is motion. Cartoon porn...using your definition of static images, would be distinct from animation, bringing us to this attempted merger failing. The only way I believe such merger would succeed, is if it was somehow a subset/entire section of erotic animation, explaining it as well as the distinction between the two, if any. But if cartoon pornography article just ceased to exist, then there's a glaring hole in explanation for static images of cartoon pornography, if that makes sense. Tutelary (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

If there would be such a "glaring hole" without it, why is that article still a stub devoid of content after more than a decade of existence? It's a failed article about a vague concept. I suggested that we rescue it by developing it into an article about a clearer topic with a better name. I began this article instead when it seemed to me that you would rather preserve a dead stub than build a good article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

While there is no deadline for articles being developed, I will say that yes, there is a large bit of content that should have been developed. I tried to do that by researching reliable sources, and it came up during a lot of underaged proceedings in criminal cases, but it appears that no one wants to talk in depth about cartoon pornography, spare a few RS that would definitely come up, so it definitely meets WP:GNG, but it is in a weird situation. It has one source currently, the majority were deleted during the legality stuff, so I will need to add the ones I have in. But yes, right now it's pretty scant on details and what is there is a little bit incomprehensible. But just because it's about a vague concept does not mean it's not notable, as you say. But it wouldn't have been rescued, even if I had not objected. It would've been renamed, its internals filled out with whatever you have on Erotic animation, making it about a bit of a different concept. Tutelary (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

If people aren't talking about it much, that doesn't support your claim of notability. Maybe they aren't saying much about it because there isn't much to say (beyond that it's about cartoons – whatever that means – and pornography – whatever that means). Obviously the phrase gets used – in various ways – and the concept is reflected in fan art, professional comics, and animation... so maybe it should be mentioned in those articles. From WP:EXISTENCE: "There are many items of interest that do exist, and do have reliable sources covering them. But only a brief amount of information can be written about them, and they directly relate to a topic covered in another article." and "The mere existence and frequent use of that word or phrase does not automatically guarantee an article with that title on Wikipedia." -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@JasonAQuest and Tutelary: It is definitely notable. Notability cant be defined as "discussed in RS". Not many RS would like to discuss about porn, or cartoon porn, or cartoon porn that depicts underage "performers". The sources that discuss these topics, aren't considered to be notable. If one takes a look at porn stats, anime has larger fanbase/number of downloads than many other paraphilia. These subjects of the article are definitely notable, no issue there. The reason i requested for speedy deletion/merger was that i got the impression this article was a duplicate/fork. We need to improve the articles first. Consodilation, moving around the content within articles as per their scope. Once we are done with that, we can efficiently think about merger or deletion. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Before we could agree on whether it's notable, we'd need to define what it is. This is the most fundamental problem with that article. The past decade has demonstrated that the phrase is not understood the same by different people, and WP:NAME advises against that. (Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.) Any time someone uses the word "cartoon" and assumes that everybody knows what they mean... I'm sorry, but they're wrong. Adding "pornography" – another subjective term (and POV too) – makes the problem even worse. So I don't know... maybe there is a valid topic out there, separate from the other articles (maybe looking at it as a paraphilia, as you suggest?) But if so, it needs a better, clearer title. Then it can try to establish notability. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The bit I was talking about was the conundrum that there exists a number of reliable sources, which when used, do establish the general notability guideline, as well as coverage in secondary sources. I know said guideline as I used to regularly participate in deletion discussions and am a new page patroller, and have been for a while. But, just because something has not been discussed for a while doesn't mean it's suddenly not notable. I do think that certainly, if you take a look at what's there on the page, there's nothing incredibly unique other than the concept of cartoon pornography that can't be merged. While WP:NAME does say what you just stated, I don't believe cartoon pornography is how vague as you think it is. Perhaps people have different conceptions about it, but it's certainly distinct in my honest view from erotic animation, which you say in this article is using film, video, or digital animation.. Even if I were not to use the animation definition on Wikipedia, but instead the dictionary, it would be the manipulation of electronic images by means of a computer in order to create moving images.. Cartoon pornography does not have to be moving, which is why I'm insistent that it can't be merged into erotic animation, since the title doesn't allow that to happen, since certain types of cartoon porn are static, not moving. Perhaps we could go with what was happened with the Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors page, and rename it to "drawn pornography". But that may not necessarily allow us to use the sources for "cartoon pornography" unless we make a note on that as permissible. The definition (that Wikipedia cites) does include an addendum as and electronic drawing. so I'm certainly open to that. Plus it might necessitate a change to the WP:LEAD, which may make it even more convoluted than it already was. Tutelary (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I know what the difference between "animation" and "comics" is. (If you're going to start proclaiming yourself an authority because of stuff you do on Wikipedia, I'll point out that in real life I'm a professional comics creator with a degree in digital animation and illustration.) The problem is that (despite the certainty inside your head) the meaning of "cartoon" is not universally obvious. If you need to spend a whole paragraph explaining in the lede what the topic is... it's an unclear topic. "Cartoon" is a garbage word, a bit of slang with shifting meanings.

But apparently you're too attached to it to let go, so let's instead try solving this from the other direction. Explain what you think "cartoon pornography" is. We have articles about animated porn, art porn, and comics porn. What is cartoon porn and how is it distinct from them? What can we say in article devoted to cartoon porn that we can't say in those articles? Why is it important (not to you, but to Wikipedia) that we have an article devoted to it? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a lot to unpack. I didn't claim I was #1 authority, just in my good faith belief that this article would indeed pass a deletion task if taken there. I also did not want to spend an entire paragraph explaining what a cartoon is, nor what "drawn pornography" is if we go down that route. I am very much glad you asked that question. I believe that cartoon pornography is exactly what the lead states. Cartoon pornography is the portrayal of illustrated or animated fictional cartoon characters in erotic or sexual situations. or, if you're not fond of using the "cartoon" in the definition, we could certainly omit it. Cartoon pornography is the portrayal of illustrated or animated fictional characters in erotic or sexual situations. Now that I'm looking at it as the second form, perhaps that would make the most sense, renaming the article to be drawn pornography, with an exception to allow WP:RS that use the terms "cartoon pornography" or "cartoon porn" as sources, since they're basically indistinguishable. Would that be an acceptable compromise? I suspect not, as you claimed that the article, despite all the time apparently necessary to develop it, has developed bits of items that seem incomprehensible, and is rather short in general. Now that I've answered your question, is there any bit of content on Cartoon pornography that could, beneficially be merged into this article? Tutelary (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

That definition would include every form of erotic art except sculpture and photography. And you didn't fully answer my question. I asked you to elaborate beyond a definition. "We have articles about animated porn, art porn, and comics porn. What is cartoon porn and how is it distinct from them? What can we say in article devoted to cartoon porn that we can't say in those articles? Why is it important ... that we have an article devoted to it?" For example, I'm trying to understand how we would classify what's on-topic for such an article. For example is Belladonna of Sadness "cartoon porn"? Is Click? The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife? Géricault's The Kiss?? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I personally don't know how to respond to that. I believe I've made my full case about why I don't believe the articles should be merged, since it's a distinct topic of its own, it would pass WP:GNG, and the fact that not gaining content after a while is one of the downsides of Wikipedia's model, where people work on the articles they want to, not the ones that need it. I'm not going to get into an argument about semantics of the definition, when I've outlined repeatedly what I've said the definition is. Tutelary (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

How about responding by answering the questions? If your definition of the scope of the article was useful in any practical sense, the answers would be simple. But it's just some ill-defined, vague, I-know-it-when-I-see-it topic that no one can agree on. By contrast, anybody with a grasp of the English language could answer whether each of these was an example of "erotic animation", "erotic comics", etc. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a WP:POV fork. It will be deleted or merged. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Suggested solution

My initial impression (due in part to the lack of any evidence to the contrary in the stub) was that "cartoon pornography" was just another way of saying "erotic animation", and that's why I suggested (with some support, I should add) just renaming the article. But I no longer think that's true. What I've been struggling with is to understand just what it is, and maybe the key is to look at the two different phrases:

• Erotic animation is a kind of animation. There's a whole range of animated material out there, and this stuff is about sex. It's analogous to erotic literature, erotic art, erotic comics, etc: one particular subject matter within the large field of an art form.
• Cartoon pornography is a kind of porn. There's a whole range of porn out there, and this stuff is about cartoon characters. It's analogous to incest pornography, babysitter pornography, or interracial pornography, etc: one particular "kink" within the large of field of an entertainment form.

They overlap. Probably a lot. But they aren't the same topic.

Erotic animation isn't always about "cartoon characters". Belladonna of Sadness and Sex Life of Robots don't feature familiar characters nor are they drawn in the style of entertainment for children. But they are erotic animation.

Cartoon porn isn't always animated, such as pornographic drawings of the Simpsons[1] and live-action porn featuring Pokémon or Adventure Time characters.[2][3][4] But they are cartoon porn.

Rather than applying a broad, all-inclusive definition that claims every sexy illustration or animation as examples of "cartoon porn", an article that focuses on cartoon porn as a special interest or genre of pornography (in whatever medium) might be useful. Meanwhile, an article that looks at examples of erotica as they are found in the medium of animation... I think we have a start on that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)