|This article contains a translation of Footjob from es.wikipedia.|
- I just removed the photo, does Wikipedia need a picture of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the current picture should be deleted. The description of the technique is enough for us who were just planning on reading the article and not see it too. If the community is inistent, I suggest using the picture in the Spanish version, which has less view. --The Editors United (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- To be frank, the article is about a sexual act and a depiction which clearly shows it is to be expected. Opposition based on the fact that it's graphic is a wilful overlooking of WP:NOTCENSORED, as such an image adds a level of understanding to an article, and being free, offers no reason not to use it. If I read the article on Forth Bridge, I'd expect a picture of the bridge, even if words alone could convey everything in the image. This isn't a graphic image being sprung on people who are unsuspecting of such a thing, it's a fitting image used in exactly the context that should be expected. GRAPPLE X 18:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I guess so. But I took the liberty to change it to one I thought was more 'scientific'. --The Editors United (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's fair enough (I can't see the difference really) but I restored the alt text you had removed; per MOS:ACCESS it's a good idea to keep alt text attached to images so that the visually impaired can still understand them through screenreaders. GRAPPLE X 18:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I also didn't see much difference, and found the other picture to be more aesthetically interesting (but I recognize that that's a personal preference). I still don't feel that the picture of the "reverse footjob" is as wholly representative of footjob techniques. It IS a footjob, to be sure, but I believe that the picture I have replaced it with is a better representation, as it shows not only the soles of the feet and underside of the toes, but the top side of one of the feet and toes. I feel that this picture is a more "scientific" representation of footjobs as a whole, given its relative nature to foot fetishism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangerdiabolik70 (talk
- Hm. It's more 'scientific' that than the first one you post, but equally as the 'reverse footjob'. I however do say we need one of the female or say one with high heels, sandals etc. Otherwise not any of the ones in the Gallery. --The Editors United (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Anti- foot fetish bias?
The VfD ended with a decision to redirect to Foot fetishism, and that was done. Eventually, the redirect ended up pointing to Non-penetrative sex although there doesn't seem to have been any discussion or consensual process. Whatever. What I'm addressing today is that at Non-penetrative sex the only activity in the entire list of Non-penetrative sex#Types of non-penetrative sexual activity to not have a wikilink is footjob. That's understandable, because it would create a loop, but it's unfair. Every other sexual activity on the list (except Intergluteal sex, currently unlinked) is wikilinked and points to its own page.
To correct this perceived bias, I propose 1) immediate reersion of the redirect to Foot fetishism, as per the VfD, and either 2) try to put some real content here that is not in Foot fetishism, or 3) extract some Footjob material from Foot fetishism and use it here, with a link from Foot fetishism to here, acting as a "bridge" between Non-penetrative sex and Foot fetishism, describing a specific activity that fits into both categories.
- To clarify, I was referring to steps 2 or 3 for discussion. Step 1, restoration of the original consensus, I already did. -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Article about Footjob
This article contains the definition of "Footjob", taken from different references. Thank you very much. - Margarita1986. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margarita1986 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The Footjob in the eroticism
The section "The Footjob in the eroticism" seems like little more than a laundry list of actresses and films featuring footjobs. I think it is time to clean this part up, but thought I would start a talk section to discuss what would be best. Thanks.--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 17:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Could we not have lists of random "stuff" please? Unsourced and unselected lists of DVDs which might or might show this, or actors who might have appeared in them, are not useful. At a minimum, we need a reliable source to verify the material, and some indication of why it might be notable. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The current wording for that section makes it sound like she actually performed a footjob on Jesse Metcalfe. Shouldn't this be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)