Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Sexology and sexuality to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Popular.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM • talk) 03:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested articles

WP:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Medicine#Sex_and_OBGYN has been cleaned up. Editors watching this page are invited to take a look at the list and consider starting new articles. In particular, a quick glance might show you a name that should be quickly redirected to an existing article, which is enormously helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Any interest in splitting of this section and linking it to this projects page? --Doc James (talk • contribs • email) 09:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project.

Here is an example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects:

There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: /Unreferenced BLPs.

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 08:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs are now located at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/Unreferenced_BLPs. Clifflandis (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that!
Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Archive 5/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 23:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

hijra

A situation has developed on the hijra article that means we are looking at having to substantially renovate the article in a consensual way - any assistance bwould be appreciated. Mish (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Old merge proposal

Hello there, I'm going through Category:Articles to be merged from December 2007 and I've got to Koinophilia and Averageness. Could somebody more expert than me have a look and see if this a valid proposal? thanks. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Jineterismo OR Prostitution in Cuba

I believe Jineterismo should be split or renamed Prostitution in Cuba any opinions? Dwanyewest (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Article title

This is pretty trivial but consistency and style are important. I have proposed a name change to Teabagging. From my take on various discussions, it appears that Tea bag (blank) would be more appropriate. This should not be a controversial move. Should it be ...(sex act), ...(sexual act), ...(sex), ...(sexuality) or something else. See: Bareback (sex), Facial (sex act), Creampie (sexual act), Pearl necklace (sexuality). Request is seen at Talk:Teabagging#Requested move Cptnono (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Sexual content proposed guideline

I have spent the last few weeks trying to author a proposed guideline on Commons that has the following objectives:

  • Proposal 1: Tagging all Commons image with standard Content-control software metatags including Nudity, Sexual Content, Violence, Offensive Language (in description or image), and Potentially Harmful Activities.
  • Proposal 2: In an effort to reduce child pornography and images of non-consential sex activity, as well as to allow commercial reuse, requiring all "sexually explicit" images to have 18 U.S.C. § 2251 contact information.
  • Proposal 3: In the meantime, start allowing voluntary submission of 18 U.S.C. § 2251 information, and develop a template that can contain it.

The response so far has been overwhelmingly negative and been subjected to section vandalism, which I've been blocked for reverting. The revised proposal has been split into the subpage Commons:Commons:Sexual content/April 2010 but the same problems are starting again. Ironically I've been labeled a Americocentric neo-puritanical prude, which is pretty laughable to those who know me here. Anyway, any and all help would be greatly appreciated in developing this very important guideline. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the two links provided actually go anywhere (you've put one on your userpage and that doesn't go anywhere either). From Wikipedia the links should be Commons:Commons:Sexual content and Commons:Commons:Sexual content/April 2010. I haven't looked at your proposals so shouldn't comment, but these things do work by developing a consensus. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pedophilia

Editors at this page may be able to contribute usefully to the discussion at WT:Pedophilia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Sexual content

The above policy has been rewritten unilaterally by Jimmy Wales. Apparently this is anticipation of policy that will be announced by the Wikimedia Foundation in the next few days designed to make the Wiki projects more inclusive of and acceptable to societies that aren't in to Western liberalism. Alongside this Wales has urged admins to speedily delete "pornography" from the Commons, guaranteeing immunity for those admins considered to be abusing their power and threatening to block any who reverse the deletions. This policy is supposed to include material currently in use, though admins seem to be backing off here in the face of outrage (but not from Jimbo!). One picture from the Portal:Sexuality/Featured picture/Archive was deleted (but restored by the same admin) it is File:Kaalos g locked-in.jpg (worth checking if you want to see what "pornography" might mean). Discussions are happening at the Commons:Village pump and at Commons:User talk:Jimbo Wales, though they seem academic as the decisions have supposedly already been taken. As the Wikimedia Commons is our image library this affects any and all media we use. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

We just received the same info on :de WikiProject Sexology and sexuality (German de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Sexualität/Information). This might be even worse than it looks. It seems a rewrite of the Commons guidelines is underway. It would be great if interesseted native speakers could join the discussion. Regards from Bavaria, --Nemissimo (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons - Rules on BDSM content

It would be great if authors with knowledge on the subject could have a glance here. Kind Regards, --Nemissimo (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have little knowledge of the subject. I do know that Jimbo has unilaterally rewritten the Commons sexual content rules. If he has his way pretty much any expression of BDSM will be deleted including stuff photographed openly on the street. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So far, Jimbo has bowed to community consensus to restore specific works following undeletion discussion at commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests. If you find useful BDSM photos that are deleted that you want restored - whether or not they're in use - please inform me on my talk page or by e-mail and I'll make sure they're nominated for undeletion. This "policy" means nothing without the support of the community. Dcoetzee 00:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see Commons:News regarding the sexual content purge. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The call for knowledgeable help suggests, at best, the hope of constructing some informed guideline to be used to determine what is porn and what isn't. To the best of my knowledge, there is no documented limit to the breadth of paraphilias. Without a limit to what might be desired, there is no limit to what might pander to those desires: Anything could be porn. Furthermore, the reaction to be divined is that of some third person (editor, FBI agent, reporter, etc.) who is, in turn, trying to infer about the artist's intentions or some other viewer's perception. This brings us back to the policy debate between the compromise between porn and censorship, already going on elsewhere. BitterGrey (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
It really would help if editors with any interest got involved in the undeletion requests. In order for images to be restored there has to be a consensus in favor. Only admins tend to take part as only they can see the deleted images. Many liberal admins (and other users) left the project when this started and the pro-censorship lobby is weighing in using the "new policy" as justification, even though this has largely been dismantled after debate on the Commons. Peter Damian is joining in on the side of a pro-deletion "consensus" and is probably organizing more via the Wikipedia Review. I think Wikipedians are sitting back, waiting and expecting this all to be fixed but all that's needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
For discussion's sake, let's say that there are still good wikipedians that haven't been driven away by evil's practical ability to delete anything, anywhere, whenever, and as frequently as they like here. Short of becoming wikimedia administrators, what can we do to help? (I, for one, probably will never make admin, due to a lack of sitting back.) BitterGrey (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a bit hard as the stuff's all spread out. Important discussions seem to take place on Commons talk:Sexual content which is the discussion page for the relevant policy page on the Commons - Commons:Sexual content. Also important stuff has happened on Commons:Village pump and User talk:Jimbo Wales. You don't have to be an admin to join in, I'm not. In fact the admin position in Wikimedia projects isn't supposed to be one of authority just responsibility. The authority for decisions is supposed to come from a worked out consensus. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sex-related article improvement

Google's private foundation is supporting expansions of the Swahili Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, and Arabic Wikipedia. (See this announcement.) Forty medicine- or health-related articles, some of particular interest to developing countries, have been identified as targets. Basically, Google has offered to have these articles reviewed and professionally translated -- and we'd all rather that the translators were looking at good, accurate, globally relevant articles.

The list of articles includes some topics that are within the scope of this project or closely related to it, including:

Several of these articles have recently been reviewed by outside experts, who have suggested several freely accessible online sources, factual corrections, and some ways to expand incomplete articles. Others will be reviewed soon. Please read the comments on the talk pages and see whether you can help. Even small contributions are very much appreciated.

If you are interested in helping with the overall project, please consider adding Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project to your watchlist, improving any articles on the list, and/or contributing advice at the talk page. All editors are welcome. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sybian

In Sybian, I removed a promotional paragraph that only had primary sources, and a promotional video. Nobody else commented on the text, one other editor supported the removal of the vid.

WLU (talk · contribs) reverted[1] the removal, reinstating the video and the text.

Therefore, I am seeking other opinions on these two issues;

1. Talk:Sybian#Development 2. Talk:Sybian#Advert

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  03:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Alfred Kinsey

The biography is becoming the focus of some aggressive editing that has deleted well-sourced material about his work and replaced this with material about the controvery surrounding his work instead, thus turning it into a WP:ATTACK which WP:SOAP-boxes focusing mainly on criticisms that arose many years after his life. Mish (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Absexual AFD

I just wanted to make people aware that the article Absexual has been nominated for deletion. I feel that this is a valid citable neologism, and is exactly the kind of concept that people would be inclined to look up on Wikipedia if the stumbled across the term and wanted to know more about it, beyond what a simple dictionary definition would provide. (Albeit, the article itself could use some work.) Iamcuriousblue (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please help review commons:Commons:Sexual content

Commons has been developing a proposed policy regarding sexual content at commons:Commons:Sexual content. It is now stable and ready for review by third parties - please look it over and provide any feedback on the talk page. We want to move forward on adoption soon. I'd also appreciate it if you can help spread the news to other relevant forums and local wikis, since this affects everyone. Thank you! Dcoetzee (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Circumcision

There is a protracted discussion about the use of the term 'uncircumcised' to describe a penis that has not been circumcised - at Talk:Circumcision, input from experienced editors would be appreciated. - MishMich - Talk - 09:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC) This has now been put before NPOV Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Circumcision. Thanks. - MishMich - Talk - 12:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Positions

In the main article, under "other positions" the description of the scissors position should be modified to say "manual stimulation of the breast and/or clitoris" rather than just "breast stimulation." Source: From personal experience, even a previously non-orgasmic woman may reach orgasm if the male partner is inside her in the scissors position, with left hand stimulating her right nipple, and right hand stimulating her clitoris.

Rkschaffner (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

UK Teenage Pregnancy Policy

I'm posting this question here because this WikiProject is the closest thing to a project that deals with teen pregnancy. I was wondering if anyone here could help me figure out this article. It's unclear whether or not the article is about an actual official policy in the United Kingdom, a review/critique of such a policy or and article about an evaluation of "he recent guidance papers published by the DfEF." The only way I can see this article being appropriate if it were about an official policy. The first sentence of the article's lead says the article "evaluates the government’s teenage pregnancy policy since 1999." However, most of the article is a summary of a report made by the Social Exclusion Unit (now called the Social Exclusion Task Force). Is the article worth salvaging? --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 21:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Opinions are welcome (Talk:Sexual orientation)

On the sexual orientation talk page. I'm mentioning that other new sexual orientations should be mentioned in the page as they are sexual orientation too, right now sexual orientation page only mentions homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality. (and a bit of asexuality)
I'm zoosexual so that's one reason I want to push this, second reason is to be fair to other sexual orientations like asexuals, pedosexuals and maybe other future sexual orientations that may come up as more scientific studies are done about human sexuality.
Alusky (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Pansexuality should also be included. Pansexuality is similar to bisexuality, but it shouldn't be lumped under bisexuality. This is because bisexuality exists within the gender binary (male/female), but pansexuality describes sexual attraction regardless of the gender binary. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not you want to push something, and what your POV may be (and everyone has some sort of POV, regardless of how WP:NPOV they edit), you'll need reliable sources (WP:RS) to back it up. Such as reliable academic or news articles calling it a sexual orientation. Especially for something so likely to be challenged, you'll need that. If I am not mistaken, the American Psych. Association's Diagnostic manual (DSM) still refers to zoosexuality as a paraphilia (zoophilia), and the international or European counterparts are probably similar. The best you may be able to do is to frame it as is something like The APA defines it as a paraphilia, but source x defines it as a sexual orientation. (if you can find source x, and it is worded in a way that does not violate WP:UNDUE (giving undue weight / i.e. making a fringe point of view seem more established than it is). The same sourcing/undue requirements would apply to calling pansexuality an orientation, even though it is not defined as a paraphilia like zoophilia is. Happy editing, Wikignome0530 (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


September 2010 (UTC)

Zoosexuality is to be considered on similar lines as homosexuality

The reliable sources are Hani Meletski (USA), Andrea Beetz (2002 Germany), Williams and Weinberg (USA 2003) drashok (talk)

Gokkun

A dispute has arisen on this article about whether including an illustration is appropiate. Project members are invited to visit the talk page to contribute to the debate. Exxolon (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Main Page proposal

As related to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-06/News and notes, subsection: "Main page biases?"

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Input requested for an EL at sex addiction

Hi, folks.

I am a professional sex researcher, publishing on a range of topics in sexology. I was recently interviewed regarding sex addiction and thought that the content would be relevant to that page. Although I disclosed my status[2] as the subject of the interview on the talkpage, another editor (user:KimvdLinde) believes that the addition should be made by someone other than me. (That is, Kim did not indicate any problem with the content, only that I should not be the person adding the EL.)

Because sex addiction is not being highly edited at the moment, I am posting this here for any interested editor to review the EL, the page, and to decide whether the EL is indeed an appropriate/useful addition to sex addiction.

The interview can be linked either from the journalist's original site: http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/leading-edge/dr-james-cantor-sex-addiction/ or from my faculty website at the University of Toronto, which mirrors it: http://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor/page18.html

— James Cantor (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Sexuality articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pedophilia#Proposals for new lead and whether the article should be moved

Input needed on whether the authoritative use should come before the general use of term, and on whether the article should be moved. Flyer22 (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality sidebar/template/side-navbar?

Why is there no sidebar for Sexuality the way there is for Sociology and other similar topics? There's a sidebar for "Relationships", which can include sex articles I guess, but Human Sexuality is also its own beast and should be treated as such. Seems a major omission, similar to the major omission recently being started to be remedied in WikiProject Disability. Shouldn't there be one? What are people's thoughts on this? Am I missing something and people have already made a horizontal navbar or something? Kikodawgzzz (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

A horizontal navbar does exist at {{Sex}}, though I think the only sidebars are for more specific topics (such as {{Sexual orientation}} and {{Sex and the law}}). More sexuality templates can be found in Category:Sex and sexuality templates and its subcategories. Wikignome0530 (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think I'm more talking about a type of sidebar and/or navbar that focuses on the sociological aspects of sex, or sexology as a field — one that would have for example polyamory yet still comfortably fit things like celibacy, involuntary celibacy and asexuality within it. I'm not even so much talking about "lifestyle choices" so much as the scientific sexual analysis of them - could we not have a "science of sex" type sidebar/navbar that could comfortably fit these things and others that might be little-known if not included in a navbar? Right now there seem to be two chief navbar types: either the one dedicated to sex acts and associated phenomena, or very specific subgenres of the human sexual experience (sexual orientation, BDSM etc). Why can't there be a "science of sex" type navbar supplying us with an easily-navigable overview of known, lesser-known, and unknown sexual topics? Please note, when I say "science of sex" I am not talking about medical analysis, but rather, a social science type thing, or psychosocial, in the sense of a scientific look at sexual psychology. It'd certainly be a good alternative choice to the too-general on the one hand (the Sex navbar) and too specific (the Sexual Orientation sidebar et al).Kikodawgzzz (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Why not create a draft (e.g. just an outline, with proposed title, categories and articles). It looks like you have some starting ideas, but a bit larger, more concrete example of the sorts of articles you have in mind for the nav template might help get the ball rolling. With a more concrete model, others might be encouraged to contribute, suggest refinements, etc.
If that results in something that seems well defined, stable, not too big, etc. then can convert it into a nav. template and add it to apropos articles.
Main thing I can suggest is to try to make it something with an obvious and definite focus. (Having a brief statement of the focus and what is/isn't apropos to put as a noinclude on the template page can help if it isn't something that is immediately obvious. But something that the title tells what is apropos is better.) The sex template, for instance suffers from too broad a focus, so it requires frequent weeding. Zodon (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I tried a copy-paste of the Template:Sex format with modified content over at the new Template:Human sexuality I tried to make, but it's not working for some reason; the code keeps getting messed up and I'm not sure how or why -- it shouldn't be happening considering it's a direct cut-and-paste of code that does work. Someone repair it please? Kikodawgzzz (talk)
Fixed - there were a couple extra left brackets in one of the items. I tidied it up a bit further (removed some chunks that were copied from sex that didn't seem relevant to the topic, rearranged a couple others). I did not add it to any of the related articles (figure needs some more filling out/refining before take it live). Hope that helps. Zodon (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

re-added deleted aspects to Sex Template

This is a cut-and-paste from the Sex Template discussion page so that WikiProject Sexuality contributors can see it and can join the discussion I've started over there. I am reverting a previous user's deletion of the articles I added to the Sex Template for the following reasons:

  • The most-appropriate possible category listed in this, the main Sexuality template (for lack of a better one, which I believe should be developed), "Relationships and Society", is the one under which I have put celibacy, involuntary celibacy and single person. I am going to fight to keep those there, because I firmly believe they should be there.
  • If sexual abstinence can be there, so can things like the ones I added, plus, I would even argue, asexuality also. If people working on this Template want to make a more appropriate (i.e. sexology-centered) template because they feel that these things don't belong in the Sex template, then I encourage them to do so. But there is apparently no such template and given the development of the Sex template and how closely associated with the Sex WikiProject it is, I am placing these things here the best I can until someone professional can take it upon themselves to make a more appropriate overall template.
  • Please also see this issue I raised here for my opinion on the template issue more generally.

If other people want to revert my mods again, they should have the decency to reply in-depth to this note I have left. Continued discussionless reversions of those mods will be periodically counter-reverted by me. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the main in-progress discussion on this, by the way.Kikodawgzzz (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Male prostitution

I have just read the article in Wikipedia on male prostitution and thought I would add the following information, which is not mentioned in the article and may not be common knowledge. In England in the 18th and early 19th century, there were Houses of Prostitution that catered for men who wanted to have sex with other men. These houses were known as "Molly Houses," and the (male) prostitutes were caleed "Mollys." If anyone is interested in more information on this subject, it can be found in the book "Mother Clap's molly house : the gay subculture in England 1700-1830" by Rictor Norton. I suspect the word "clap" used in this context refers to the slang term for gonorrhea. 58.168.105.144 (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment (eHarmony)

Please visit eHarmony's discussion page for a discussion regarding the use of a citation that is critical of eHarmony. Some feel that it is a commentary by a notable competitor and should be presented as such, but others consider it too biased to be reliable. Shawnc (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content

All 3 parts of the 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content are now available. Please read and contribute to the discussion on the talk pages. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Greek love - delete and disambiguate?

Discussion here for those interested. Thanks.McZeus (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Sexuality articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Stale RfC on Talk:Gokkun

There is a 2-months old RfC on Talk:Gokkun about image inclusion. Would some uninvolved admin kindly look at it and close it? Thanks! --Cyclopiatalk 10:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Jay Wiseman AfD discussion

If interested, please see this deletion discussion and comment. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD for GL

I have now nominated Greek love for deletion. I have no idea exactly when it will pop out of the admin workshop, piping hot and ready for voting. Soon I expect. McZeus (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System, which is relevant to the subject of this WikiProject, should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

dudesnude

I need help finding resources, copyediting, expanding, improving, finding sources and saving dudesnude.Hemanetwork (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Re-eval of quality of blue balls requested

I just spent a few hours researching, copyediting and unreliable info trimming of blue balls. The article was rated C - I was wondering if anyone could re-evaluate it and comment on where it can be improved. - Davodd (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

reboot for sexual fetishism article?

I have been participating in a discussion I started over at sexual fetishism wherein I argue that the article needs to be completely and totally redone (thus the term "reboot") to reflect the present-day understanding(s) of sexual fetishism as an active collection of lifestyles (however morally repugnant according to some in the political 'mainstream') rather than psychopathology. I heartily encourage others from the Project here to join in on the discussion. Apparently, there has already been a speedy closure of my AfD request, so those of us who believe the sexual fetishism article should accurately reflect what sexual fetishism is really about should probably head over there and edit. For the record, I do not personally know enough details on the research of sexual fetishism to do it all myself, but I am sure there are more than enough people from this Project who do already know about it and can add verifiable information to back up current and truthful assertions about sexual fetishism. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/Archive_5&oldid=1137365810"