Talk:Teratophilia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Is this page really necessary

Is a page on teratophilia really necessary? I think that unless there can be some sort of information other than a dictionary definition, this article really needs to be transwikied to wiktionary or deleted, as a dictionary definition really does not belong on Wikipedia. I tried to have it deleted when it was first created, as it seemed to be practically empty. In any case, any comments? Thanks, Werdna648T/C\@ 11:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: After consideration, I have decided that I would prefer this article be Merged into Paraphilia. I think that Teratophilia is so rare and obscure that it really should be put into a larger scope. -Werdna648T/C\@ 11:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

...yea I agree. I never heard of this and had to see what it was. But very obscure and should be mentioned in the other article. As it is, it's only a dic def anyway. --DanielCD 17:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reason to belive that the condition is not so vvery rare. There is, for example, a good deal of erotica featuring amputees or otherwsie physically unusuial people which seems targeted to people with this Paraphilia. Use, at least online use of the term "teratophilia" seems rare. I suspect that use in print sources may be a little more common. Clearly this article should be either expanded or merged, an article that little more than a dictdef is a bad idea IMO. I think it might be possible to reasonably expand this article, but i would need to do some research in print sources, and it might be a coupsle of weeks before I could do that. If people want to wait on the merge, I will try to do that reaserch, and in the emantime will provide cross-links between Paraphilia and Teratophilia. If people want to go ahead with the merge, I won't strongly object, if i find more info I can ether add it to Paraphilia or split out this subject again if the content seems too long to comfortablky fit into the merged article. if you do a merge, please leave this as a redirect. DES (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I have added a bit of non-dictdef content. This would still not be inappropriate for a merge, but the amount of content here is now rather larger than that included at Paraphilia for any of the other named paraphilias listed there. Note that pretty much every other named condition listed there links to a separate article. If all the content now in this articel were merged, it might rather unbalance Paraphilia, and if it were trimmed much, significant information might be lost. In light of this, the desireability of a merge might be reconsidered. DES (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that deletion is not the way to go now that this article has got some decent content, and I agree with you on your comments in relation to the merge. The article is, however, still a little small. What content do you think we should add before this article has some semblance of completion? It is still a little light on content. Thanks, Werdna648T/C\@ 22:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This dispute needs to be resolved faster. I posted it for RFC to get a few second opinions. -Werdna648T/C\@ 04:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I say merge, unless someone seriously expands it. Sethie 16:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I admit the article is still a stub, and should ideally be expanded. But look at the content of Paraphilia. Most of the specific paraphilia's listed there have only a single line of description, and many are bare links without any description. Also, almoist all have bluse links, so separate articels exist for them. Trying to merge all the content wqe now have in this articel into Paraphilia would IMO seriously unblanace Paraphilia. "Mewrging" to a 1-line description while deleting this article (or converting it to a redirect) would lose significant content. I think a merge is no longer a really acceptable idea for these reasons. DES (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I think this article should remain, mostly per DES's comments above. Looking at the paraphilia article, all of the different variations mentioned there have their own pages, and have small one-line descriptions. While Taratophilia doesn't have much information, it certainly has more than that one-line description, and gives a little more detail about the condition. Furthermore, I think that this page could definately expand, at least by another paragraph or two, if one or more interested parties were to do some more writing/research. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Merge

Many philias are like this, if you do it, do them all..., --FlareNUKE 07:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing article from "Further Reading"

the article by Koren (1993) has a misleading title as it deals with teratophilic biases of teratogenic science concernced with the effects of prenatals cocaine exposure to the fetus/newborn. since it does not deal with the paraphilia at all, it should be deleted from the "further reading"-section in my opinion. (Richie, 19 May 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)