Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-naming-guidelines
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".
A proposal's acceptance or rejection is not determined simply by counting votes. |
Contents |
[edit] The problem
We should follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which says:
 |
This page in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. |
However, there are several problems with implementing this for sex-related articles.
[edit] Multiple accepted names
Many sexual practices have two or more fairly well accepted names which are used in different contexts and have different levels of formality. It is difficult to determine which follows WP:NAME better.
For instance, the practice of stimulating the anus with the mouth and/or tongue is variously called anal-oral contact, anal-oral sex, anilingus, and rimming.
[edit] No accepted name
Many sexual practices do not unambiguously have any widely accepted name. For instance, there is currently a page called the butterfly sex position, but there's no reference for the position documented there being called that, nor is the term widely used in popular culture, and, in fact, at least one book calls a different position by that name.
Particularly for sex positions, authors of books and magazines seem to like publishing long lists of positions, each with a colorful name. However, it is likely that there is no consistency between these lists except for a very few positions such as missionary. (Perhaps someone should do a study to verify this.)
However, some Wikipedia editors latch on to a name and defend it vigorously. The following claims are sometimes made:
- We should use the name that has the most acceptance regardless of how little acceptance this is.
- We have a responsibility to inform the ignorant public of the correct names of things.
The first point clearly fails both WP:V and WP:NAME. It violates WP:V because it is beyond our ability to verify whether a particular rare name is slighly more popular than another rare name. It violates WP:NAME because if only 1% of English speakers recognize a colorful name like "butterfly position" as meaning the position currently illustrated at that page, then a descriptive name such as "woman lying on raised surface with man standing sex position" would be better recognized.
The second point assumes that everything has a single true name handed down from above. This is a fallacy. Names only become "correct" when they are accepted either by most of the general population or by most of a body which is considered authoritative by most of the general population. For instance, "dog" is the correct word for the animal it refers to because most people agree that it is. "Quark" is the accepted name for the constituents of protons and neutrons because most physicists accept this name and physicists are considered authoritative by the general population.
Looking for acceptance by an authoritative body gives us correct names for body parts. For instance, even though "vagina" is often taken to mean the entire female genitals, it makes sense to call that naming incorrect because doctors and biologists use the word to refer only to the birth canal and we consider them to be authorities. On the other hand, there is no authoritative body that names sex positions, so we can only look for acceptance from the general public. If there is no well accepted name there either, the concept simply does not have a name.
[edit] The solution
[edit] Multiple accepted names
When there are multiple names or terms used for a sex act, position, or practice, use the one which is most likely to be used in polite conversation, or a technical/research article on the concept. This term should be used as the primary article name, or reference name, with other common names redirected to that article. Example: Sexual intercourse is preferred over fucking and oral sex is preferred over blow job or going down on.
However, do not use a technical term if it does not exist, is only used rarely, or is extremely cumbersome. Instead, use a term in common usage and make a redirect for any technical term(s). Example: Rusty trombone probably has no technical term. Example: the technical term for gang bang is probabably something like "multiple partners in a short amount of time", which is a terrible name for a page.
Especially prefer technical terminology over colloquialisms if the colloquialisms are considered vulgar. Counter-example: Handjob is prefered over manual-genital stimulation because handjob is, relatively speaking, not considered vulgar.
[edit] No accepted names
When the name of a sex act, position, or practice has no widely accepted name, or when the same term is used for a variety of concepts, there are two options. Either no name should be used for the concept, or we should try the use the name which appears to be used by the most people. In the second case, we should provide two unrelated high-quality citations that use the same name for the same concept. If these citations cannot be found, then the term should be treated as a neologism, and should not be referenced by a name.
