Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oral sex (no pictures)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oral sex (no pictures)

Not a fork, just an autocensored version of Oral sex, database cruft without encyclopedic merit. Gmaxwell 06:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Original article says something like: "If you don't want images, turn them off on your browser". Wikipedia isn't censored. Keep. Mgm|(talk) 07:53, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • Oops. I meant delete of course. You may not call it a fork, but duplicating articles with the aim to autocensor is still forking. Mgm|(talk) 10:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, the original warning said "This article contains photographs of sex acts. For a version without photographs, see Oral sex (no pictures)." before Gmaxwell vandalized Template:Photo warning. Keep, per precedent at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored). —Korath (Talk) 10:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • Vandalized? That is a little rude. I justified my changes in my edit summary, and my edits were in good faith. Abu Ghraib didn't orignally use Template:Photo warning, but rather Template:Morbid warning, which is the same as the current Photo warning, but it was deleted. The consensus was that the Abu Ghraib article would not use a template for its link to the censored version. A primary argument was that the existance of the template would encourage the creation of other censored articles. I did not realize that the link in Abu Ghraib had been replaced with the template in violation of that decision. --Gmaxwell 14:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • See Template talk:Photo warning. See also WP:TFD, which is currently chock-full of the uselessness you edited the template into. If you want something gone, you nominate it for deletion; you don't try to ruin it and sit back and wait for someone else to nominate it. —Korath (Talk) 15:22, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
          • Would you please discontinue your overt hostility towards me, I'd prefer a civil discussion. I think it is probably useful to have a warning of the explicit nature of such pages, and I believe there was such a warning on on the article before that template was used. I was not attempting to ruin it so that it would be deleted but rather, I made two changes which I believed would improve it. I changed the wording to reduce a POV slant, and I removed the no pictures link because disabling images is the only sure way to not see naked pictures. I'm well aware of the TFD page, and would have nominated it myself if I felt that was clearly the best path at this time. --Gmaxwell 15:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.Precedent disallows forks, even for censorship. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Not a fork. Look at the article source. —Korath (Talk) 10:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Turning off pictures is too technical for most users to accomplish. DDerby 09:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • There was a proposed addition to mediawiki in the past to provide a navigation button to disable images easily (eh, well I can't find the cite, but other people tell me I am remembering correctly). It was overwhelmingly denied. The process of creating a (no pictures) version of Oral sex is a substantially POV pushing action because it says that the encyclopedia has an opinion of what content is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. I would support an easy to use hide image button in the main navigation, but the creation of special no images pages is harmful (encourages forking and censorship, since the *text* is explicit as well so a Oral sex (no thought crime) is the obvious next step. I also oppose the semi-fork as it cruds the database, and because it encourages POV pushing in links (changing links to the censored version)). Also the (no pictures) version would be a huge target for vandalism, as someone could easily stick a shocking picture at the top and really surprise people who though they were safe. Finally, since it is not possible to edit Oral sex without looking at the pictures, we are effectively telling people that don't want to see nudies that we don't want them editing wikipedia. --Gmaxwell 15:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per DDerby. I wouldn't know how to turn off pictures in my browser. And as long as we've got the proper Oral Sex article as well, there's no real censorship. P Ingerson 09:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's only one picture anyway and the article itself is pretty explicit without it. Robinoke 10:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unnecessary duplication of content already at another article. --Angr/comhrá 11:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unnecessary duplication. Anyone who would be offended by the photos would be offended by the text. How many other articles with nude photos would have to be duplicated if we go this route? Mwanner 12:02, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote. Comment: The reason anyone would want this is not to prevent themselves from being offended, but so that it is safe to view in a public or semi-public place (school, library, work, at home with young children or paranoid parents). And while people can browse with images off, some people may not know how to, and in any case it's inconvenient. On the other hand, having it for an individual article is an ugly hack and perhaps bad precedent. I personally think there should be an option when browsing Wikipedia to not view any images inline, which would be much cleaner (no pun intended) and more effective. Nickptar 12:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary duplication. Keeping images that may seem objectionable to some seems to be policy, see talk:autofellatio, image polls and discussion--nixie 13:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete is it me, or have the puritans started coming out in droves? Burgundavia 15:20, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not useful. I favour deleting this page, as well as removing the photo from Oral sex (at minimum, changing it into a link). This is an encyclopedia; such explicit images do not belong here. Does any other encyclopedia prominently feature similar material? Should goatse.cx contain the infamous "hello.jpg" image? - Mike Rosoft 15:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid removing the photos from Oral sex won't ever get consensus; I, for one, would oppose, and the very existence of this vfd shows that people still want to shove these pictures in people's faces whether they want to see them or not. See also Talk:Goatse.cx/Vote. —Korath (Talk) 15:53, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote, not a fork because of the way it's done, could be replaced with a software option like the hide/show for tables of contents. --SPUI (talk) 16:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Right which is why I pointed out in the VFD that it's not technically a fork... although the practice encourages forking as now Woman on top sex position (no pictures) which is actually a fork, and even fails to link back to the orignal and is biased in what pictures it removes. Creating no pictures links for some articles and not others is POV. People who want a no pictures option need to start a vote for that feature. --Gmaxwell 16:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • End-user image suppression is currently on hold because of technical and design problems. Articles like this, where someone has identified a problem and gone to the trouble of fixing it, and has done so without forking, should be kept as stopgap measures until the software solution is in place. (And if you nominate the fork or point me at its vfd, I'll be the first to vote delete.) —Korath (Talk) 16:35, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) (I will in fact nominate Woman on top sex position (no pictures) for deletion myself; I was replying to an earlier version of your comment. —Korath (Talk) 16:38, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep delete this article, but I'd support a no-pictures option - not for censorship reasons - but to help those of us addicted enough to browse (and edit) WP over GPRS and/or Wireless Application Protocol. If someone starts or finds such a proposal please could they put a link on my talk page, thanks. Thryduulf 16:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • You might want to change your vote, because you can't actually edit the article from the no pictures page. --Gmaxwell 16:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Section edit links work just fine. —Korath (Talk) 16:35, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • vote changed to what I acutally meant to write (note to self: don't try to edit WP while completely frustrated at printers refusing to work). Thryduulf 16:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. RickK 18:40, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quote from the Wikipedia:Schools' FAQ "Wikipedia is not bowdlerized or censored." Dave the Red (talk) 19:32, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: My suggestion is that on the main Oral Sex page, we can provide a link to the photo in question, just like what we have done in the autofelatio page. Zscout370 19:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. --cesarb 21:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. Jayjg (talk) 22:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Fork. K1Bond007 23:44, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:WIN censored for the protection of minors. Radiant_* 08:05, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the idea makes my skin crawl. Can anyone in his or her right mind -- even a pitchfork-wielding peasant -- seriously go to a page on "Oral sex" in an illustrated encyclopedia and not expect an illustration? — Xiong熊talk 09:58, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
  • ANNIHILATE! —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:08, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. --Carnildo 18:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Eugene van der Pijll 17:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Destroy. Dmn / Դմն 19:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete pov fork! RustyCale 00:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. Wmahan. 14:42, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. And I'm genuinely offended that anyone would compare depictions of oral sex to depictions of prisoners being tortured—I think it takes a pretty skewed value system to find them both equally distasteful. Perhaps I should create a fork of this VfD page so I don't have to look at the comment that offended me. Postdlf 15:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I am not sure how thinking the pictures are inappropriate is in anyway more POV than saying tht they are not. However, I do see it as something of a fork unless the content updates in both locations with a single edit, and even this its ugly. MediaWiki should support some sort of navagation bar to turn them off, though from the comments above that does not look likley. Dalf | Talk 02:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • NPOV requires us not to consider the issue of "appropriateness" at all—only how relevant and informative it is to the article. Postdlf 02:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Quixotic keep, although I would prefer linking even more still. Cool Hand Luke 08:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV — Davenbelle 11:17, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • I find it most disturbing that Cool Hand Luke has responded to this VfD by changing the inlined image on the Oral sex page to a link. This in my opinion is blatantly against the sense expressed by most of those who have voted to delete the bowdlerized page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Strong concur with Tony Sidaway. I am at work at the moment, and so viewing the Oral sex article would not be apropriate, but this is no reason to remove pictures - I would expect it to have pictures and thus not be suitable for work. If I want to read about sex-related topics then I can do that at home. Tony, if you haven't done already please revert (do so in my name and/or cite this comment if you want). Thryduulf 10:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I find it more disturbing that Gmaxwell has, several times, improperly orphaned this page (both via the template, and removing the template from Oral sex). Not to mention all the ignorant "fork" votes, none of which have grasped the fact this is not a fork by any reasonable definition of the word. Entire contents below. —Korath (Talk) 13:57, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
{{:Oral sex|suppress image=-5px|mWf={|mWb=}</font></div><div class="boilerplate metadata" id="violence" style="background: #dff; border: 1px solid #aa8; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 10px">''This is a version of the article which does not include images. For the complete version of this article see [[Oral Sex]].''</div><font color=white>}}

<!--To edit this page, you must edit the article with pictures at [[Oral Sex]] or use section editing. This page without pictures is derived from "Oral Sex" and does not need to be edited every time the main article is.-->
It is a second article on the subject of oral sex. It is based on the article oral sex. It is not exactly the same as the article oral sex. Therefore, it is a fork of the original article. --Carnildo 18:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, it's not. It transcludes oral sex. Any modification to oral sex will also be reflected in this article. It may or may not be a good idea, but it's not a 'fork'. Nickptar 20:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The only time I edited Oral Sex was after this page was voted Delete here and I'd spoken to an administrator about archiving the discussion. Had it been my intention to orphan it in bad faith, I would have not let it sit for a week. My edit to the template was made without complete understanding of the template, and without realizing it was in use elseware because I was in the middle of doing RC patrol. For that I am sorry. I have left it alone since that discussion. I think it is wrong to force decisions on articles by deleting their content via TFD and IFD, or to hide something that should be deleted by removing a link. As far as the fork issue, I was clear in the nomination that it is not a true fork. ... I imagine those voting delete because it is a fork voted that way because it is a fork in spirit if not technically--Gmaxwell 20:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Korath. Gmaxwell's behavior could be interpreted as somewhat trollish, and I am sure that isn't the impression he wants to give. I hope he will reconsider his actions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I would to suggest, without the intention of offending, that you have failed to completely investigate the timeline of the events here before drawing your conclusion. I ran across the article on recent changes, saw the template directing to the no pictures version. I found the previously TFDed morbid photo warning template (by searching for the content of the template to figure out how it worked) and saw that it was deleted because (in part) it encouraged making forks/quasi forks. I adjusted the template to fit that concern (and did not remove it because I thought the warning was useful on the page). I then noticed that the Oral Sex (no pictures) page was actually a real page (I had previously thought it was a sideeffect for the template). I put it up for VFD. I was then told that the prisoner abuse used the template too... I'd missed that because when morbid warning was TFDed it was decided not to use a template by rather to include the text in the article. After that point I allowed the template to be reverted and left it alone. After this articles VFD timer expired with a clear delete decision, I talked to an admin about closing the VFD and I went and removed the template from the Oral Sex page. I presume this VFD has yet to be closed and archived because the debate restarted today after I yanked the template last night. After removing the template from Oral sex, I went to see if anything else was still using it, and then followed the link to the prisoner abuse article to read up on the discussion there.. After being confused by the history page, I realized that it was a copyright violation and followed the procedure for reporting it. In further discussion with Korath, I have discovered that it's possible to fix the copyright issue without removing the page... but I have to impliment that change because I am concerned by the fact that my intentions are being questioned. --Gmaxwell 20:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, firstly I'm sorry if I've misrepresented what you did. Secondly, I've no idea what you did or what state the whole silly thing is in now--which templates exist or do not exist, or whatever. Thirdly couldn't we just revert the whole silly thing to the way it was a week or two ago and pretend it never happened? This is getting embarrassing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.