Talk:Sex toy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 List of toys 2 Nipple Toys 3 history 4 Commercial/advertising links

[edit] List of toys

I did some reorganizing. Still need to fit clitoral pump in there somewhere. It seemed silly to separate them all out by which organ they're meant to touch when so many toys have multiple uses anyway, so I grouped vibes together. --Hurtstotouchfire 05:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nipple Toys

There's no mention of nipple toys at all. Strange. I'll poke through the history and see if there ever was one. --Hurtstotouchfire 22:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] history

needs a history section, if anyone knows about its history, would be nice... There is some stuff here Towsonu2003 01:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think some history on this would be very interesting. Unfortunately I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to contribute, but if you are: be bold! 85.166.233.69

Agreed. I know Good Vibrations has a vibrator museum, and they reference a few books there. --Hurtstotouchfire 22:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial/advertising links

I'm not going to plunge into editing a contentious page like this one, but all those "sex toy supplier" links at the bottom of the page are against wikipedia policy: we're not a link farm used to boost Google rankings. I spend large amounts of time killing off links to used-book sellers in various literary articles - these should be killed off, too. - DavidWBrooks 21:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed all but one (after checking - what wouldn't I do for Wikipedia). Here are the removed links (if any of them seems to be useful, please leave your comments about this fact on this Talk page). Paranoid 23:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 

It's hypocritical to eliminate other links while claiming that yours is the only useful one. Find the good grace to stop this "editing war" at least until someone can show that Wikipedia policy allows these commercial links. --Sladey 15:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed by Sladey:

It is not hypocritical - I am not selling sex toys, I am not promoting them, I have no affiliation with any of the sex toy sites and, as a matter of fact, I have never used a sex toy in my life (hope that doesn't immediately disqualify me from contributing to this article). However, I see your point that the decision to place a commercial link in this article should probably not be arbitrary. Paranoid 18:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do feel that more than one site could be useful here, and the heading for that area is External Links (plural).

I also understand that being adult in nature, there is a an amount of spamming that will occur in this area.

Seeing as my site that was removed (Added by Paranoid: breakthrough-boutique.com) is good enough for various quality human edited directories, I thought it would be an useful resource here.

There's a lot that isn't covered on the Wiki page, or the 'last site standing' that people might want to learn more about.

(the above comment is by User:24.146.22.192. You can sign your comments with your IP by writing ~~~~)

In my opinion in such "commercially attractive" articles (another example: Sildenafil) the preference should be given to purely informative external links, including academic resources, news, articles, etc. Links to purely commercial sites should not be permitted. However, when (as is the case with this article) some commercial sites also have useful informative content (in this case bbssm.com and breakthrough-boutique particularly have sufficiently well-written and broad texts that would compliment this article rather nicely), they can be included, if there is no non-commercial replacement.

I am not sure whether a formal mechanism is needed to avoid extensive lists of only marginally useful links. If it is needed, I suggest that the links be added to the talk page first where they would remain until they get 2-3 "votes" in support (preferably from wikipedians with some history of contribution). Commercial links added to the article itself should be deleted and moved to the Talk page for review. Paranoid 18:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Links here give an advantage in search engines, so I think you will find people will be constantly trying to use the article as a self

Both of the blog links are thinly veiled advertising copy. Industrious, and well written for most ad copy, but still obviously ad copy. Sethwoodworth 10:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Google no longer looks at wikipedia links bc wikipedia changed the follow-links policy Towsonu2003 01:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)