Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.

Archive 1

[edit] Need reviewers and watchers for nocturnal emission

For a long time I've been keeping an eye on nocturnal emission, but in the times when I couldn't commit as much effort to watching it, many questionable edits fell through the cracks. Today I reverted an unjustified section deletion that was two months old. Additionally, anonymous editors have frequently edited the article to refer to a variety of popular unsubstantiated myths about nocturnal emissions, particularly with regard to their cause. Unfortunately, there are many misleading sources out there on the subject that some of our editors find persuasive. It'd be really great if I could get a few more people to review this article for correctness and bias, and help to watch it for vandalism. Thanks! Dcoetzee 23:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexual transsexual GA reassessment

Homosexual transsexual has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malkinann (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pearl necklace image deletion nomination

Just to inform any editors interested the pearl necklace image has been nominated for deletion on Commons. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png 4th nomination‎ Bidgee (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category - sex and sexuality templates

I just created Category:Sex and sexuality templates - trying to gather up a bunch of navigation templates relating to sex. I added most of the templates I know of, but thought I would mention it in case there are other templates that should go in the category. Zodon (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Virgo

I've just launched Wikipedia:WikiProject Virgo, an effort to replace unexpected images containing nudity with more suitable ones. Unexpected is used here to mean "One would not under normal circumstances expect to see nudity on this page". I'm wondering if it's okay if I mark WikiProject Sexology and sexuality as a parent project. Also, anyone who would like to help is welcome. Thanks. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this project will produce considerable opposition from other editors. In fact I'm not at all sure it's not a troll. To quote from it's current guidelines Sometimes the original image will seem to be the best choice, such as in the case of a statue of a Greek goddess. In this case, cropping the image may be an option. A shoulders-up bust style crop is usually sufficient. The Wikipedia is not censored: this looks like a statement of intent to vandalize. --Simon Speed (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are not by definition set in stone, so to speak. I do understand your concern, and I am willing to work with others to make this better fit the goals of Wikipedia. Topics such as Andromeda or Satyr would be out of Virgo's scope, since certain elements of these characters are impossible to represent otherwise.

While we may prefer a Wikipedia that is not censored, we do censor it of other irrelevant information, such as facts no one cares about. Having said this, I don't think it's a problem to rework articles for a larger audience by replacing images.

Cropping is bad practice, I agree, but there is an art to doing it properly. I hadn't thought of this earlier, but many images are likely ineligible for cropping by their individual licenses.

Thoughts? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, don't quite grasp what the purpose or intent of "Project Virgo" is. "Identify and replace (not delete) inappropriate images featuring nudity or partial nudity where it is not expected or not necessary." To me that reads like an open-ended invitation (and flimsy excuse) for vandalism. There is a segment of the population that does not "expect" to see nudity in any article. Even if they do a wiki search for public nudity they are shocked and dismayed that the article contains actual examples of public nudity.

I simply feel that Project Virgo is not necessary. Wikipedia articles revolve around the concept of consensus based editing. So if there is a nude (or partially nude) image associated with an article, that would infer that a consensus feels that it is appropriate. In other words "expected". If someone were to add a nude image to an article about say a Disney character or the like, then editors would quickly remove it.

I trust that your individual intentions are noble and honest, but I worry about the unintended consequences of this project.--SeedFeeder (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for trusting me, I was slightly insulted by the first claim that I was trolling, having been an honest editor and have reverted vandalism for some time now. (I am proud to say I haven't received any warnings.)

My hopes are that this project will not turn disastrous, as you have described. That is certainly not my intent. I would like to do my best in laying out my idea as follows:

Consider this first type of situation: (I don't have a working example at the moment, but similar examples have and will most likely happen): Your child uses Wikipedia to look things up, whether for school or for fun. Perhaps he or she looks up a topic such as "Amazon.com" and finds a photo of a nude man using the service, as an illustration of a point that one can now shop naked. No, this is not currently the state of the article, and hopefully has not been, but I'm simply giving an example.

::Consider this second type of situation, perhaps more controversial than the first, and this time, I will use an example I stumbled across the other day: Your child is interested in fantasy creatures and the like, and looks up "Mermaid". The illustration at the top of this article displays bare breasts (realistic, I might add). The problem is not so much that they are bare (I don't think many people have a problem with bare-breasted animals) as that they are meant to resemble that of a human and are bare. There is nothing that says a mermaid must have bare breasts, in fact, most mermaids published in children's books have some sort of bra or seashells or the like. Now should an alternative image be found which covers the breasts modestly (not just with hair or by facing the opposite direction), this image would be more suitable for the article.

This is the purpose of Virgo. I hope it is understood now.

Let me know your thoughts, Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to make clear that in general, anatomical articles, sexuality/sexology articles, medical articles, disease/fungus/bacteria articles, and certain entities with certain imminent traits are not within Virgo's scope, and I have made this clear on the project's page. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone has pointed out that mermaids are consistently historically portrayed this way, so this article has been de-flagged. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No Bob, I still don't get it. And to be frank, you're mermaid example is a prime reason I have misgivings about a project of this nature. No matter how you justify it to yourself, Project Virgo amounts to censorship. I have the perception that mermaids have been historically depicted as being bare breasted. So, were I to venture to the mermaid page I would expect to see a topless mermaid or two. And going to that page, it would appear that the editors' consensus also share my expectations. Yet somehow you did not expect to see any nudity. What if I were to create "Project Eros" and set out adding nudity to every article that I expected to find it? That'd be called vandalism. Again, images are subject to consensus based editing. I don't understand the purpose of a project whose sole purpose is to go around attempting to override the consensus of the editors who have dedicated their time maintaining an article.--SeedFeeder (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't strike through that paragraph for no reason at all. I retracted that statement several hours ago, because you and others have convinced me that articles of that nature cannot be illustrated accurately in any other way. No sense in continuing to argue on that part. And in my "humble" opinion, an anti-censoring policy will be Wikipedia's demise, as it gradually becomes more and more risque.

You have not responded yet to my first example. I believe this is an entirely different type of scenario, and there are other types as well which, for the sake of keeping this discussion brief and not driving it into the ground, will not mention. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This project is being abandoned and deleted. Post any further questions on my talk page. Thank you. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help requested for categorization of Feminine essence theory of transsexuality

I have created a new page, Feminine essence theory of transsexuality. However, it is the first new page I have created, and I am not sure how to go about caterogizing it. Any feedback on the page and suggestions for categories would be greatly appreciated.
— James Cantor (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)