| Revision as of 17:10, 14 June 2019 editCurved Space (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users513 edits →why this "article" will be cut← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:48, 25 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,180 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Facial (sexual act)/Archive 4) (bot |
| (47 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Censor}} |
|
{{Censor}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sexuality|importance=mid|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pornography|importance=mid|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pornography|importance=mid}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
| Line 11: |
Line 11: |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Facial (sex act)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Facial (sexual act)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=90 |units=days}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== why this "article" will be cut == |
|
|
|
|
|
The implicit case seems to be that a ] is a subtopic of ]. I don't agree, as the former is (at least peripherally) a sexual act and the latter refers specifically to visual pornography — requiring respectively a (presumably human) face and an audience. |
|
|
|
|
|
There is presently substantial <u>word-for-word</u> overlap that make up the bulk of BOTH pages: '''Origin and features''', '''Health risks''', '''Criticisms and responses'''. I intend to remove from each all content that actually discusses the wrong topic.<br>] (]) 18:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This article is decently sourced, but the sources in the "Health risks" section should be improved per ]. We shouldn't be cutting anything in the article if the sources are about facials and that content ]. And that especially goes for cutting content sourced to sources we don't have access to. It cannot be helped that there is significant overlap between the topic of facials and cum shots. This does not automatically mean that the topics should be merged. Like ] states, "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." In other words, there are cases where content that is in one article should also be in another article. What Misplaced Pages editors should do is make sure that there is not so much of an overlap that the articles are essentially the same topic. In those cases, a merge is best. As for definitions, or what is a subtopic of what, we of course go by what reliable sources state. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Pinging ], ], ] and ] for their thoughts. ] (]) 03:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::First off, I'm in the "overlap is okay" camp. If the information is valid for both topics, I should be able to get that information by reading either article -- I shouldn't be required to read both. Additionally, it would be a challenge to split the duplicate information between the two articles "fairly", and having it all in one article makes the other significantly less informative. I don't like the "word for word" thing either, but you wouldn't necessarily notice that unless you read both articles in full. Not everyone will do that. |
|
|
::Second, I don't consider "facial" to be a subtopic of "cum shot" either, nor would I agree to merge them, at least at this point. IMO, a cum shot is explicitly and entirely about the visual aspect -- that's the "shot" part. It also doesn't necessarily require the participation or even the presence of another person. A facial, on the other hand, does require a second person, and there is appreciable value (for lack of a better work) in the reaction of the recipient -- happiness, humiliation, whatever. These differences seem strong enough to me to warrant separate articles. |
|
|
::All that said, there does seem to be a fair amount of bulk, just from a quick scan. (The facial article, for example, doesn't need the third paragraph in the lede, mentioning the foreplay, volume of ejaculate, or what happens to it when exposed to the air.) If a section is about excessively about the setup or the cum shot in and of itself, it probably doesn't belong in the facial article. Similarly, excess weight about facials in the cum shot article would be better directed over here. If the end result of this is either article being too sparse, then maybe a merge would be a good idea. But I'd have to look more closely at the end result to decide. ] (]) 04:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Only just seen this, but in essence I agree with HalJor. The only divergence is that I do think facial is a sub-topic of cum-shot, but I also think that pretty much any ejaculatory sex act is a subset - ] for example. However, overlap and duplication is Ok, because they are notable topics in their own right. |
|
|
:::Irrelevant material can be reasonably removed, but not simply because it's duplicated in another article. |
|
|
:::Another comment is that I'm naturally against any topic that starts off by saying '' why this "article" will be cut'' -- which is basically stating that the action will be carried out regardless of discussion and including the "scare quotes" to imply this isn't a real article. Such behaviour is anathema to Misplaced Pages, and deserves to be opposed merely on principle. ] (]) 17:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
.svg){kind=small}
