| Revision as of 04:38, 13 June 2019 editHalJor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,148 edits →why this "article" will be cut: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:10, 14 June 2019 edit undoCurved Space (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users513 edits →why this "article" will be cutNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| ::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. | ::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) | ::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) | |||
Revision as of 17:10, 14 June 2019
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Facial (sexual act) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Facial (sexual act) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
why this "article" will be cut
The implicit case seems to be that a facial is a subtopic of Cum shot. 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 word-for-word 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.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- This article is decently sourced, but the sources in the "Health risks" section should be improved per WP:MEDRS. We shouldn't be cutting anything in the article if the sources are about facials and that content is valid to retain. 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 Misplaced Pages:Content forking#Related articles 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 MShabazz, HalJor, Polly Tunnel and Curved Space for their thoughts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 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. HalJor (talk) 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 - Creampie (sexual act) 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. Curved Space (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages objectionable content
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- B-Class Pornography articles
- Mid-importance Pornography articles
- B-Class Mid-importance Pornography articles
- WikiProject Pornography articles