Sorry for canvassing, but assistance is kindly requested at Talk:Sex position#Definition of Sex position. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The naming of the article "English rose (personal description)" is under discussion, see talk:English rose (personal description) -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Help with Simple English stubs
Hi, the Simple English Wikipedia needs help with expanding its sexuality stubs, including the following:
These articles don't have to get up to featured article status right away, just so they're long enough to not be stubs. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm just asking for five or ten minutes of work on each article, just enough so they're no longer stubs. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Study of readers of 50 Shades
doi:10.1089/jwh.2014.4782  is a study of female readers 18-24 of the 50 Shades trilogy. I was wondering how this should be integrated into the article(s). -- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Page move is requested; join discussion. --George Ho (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Revisions to sex education pages
I am a student who is working on a couple of articles for a class assignment. I am revising the articles "Sex-education in the United States" in order to add a social issues and demographics section (for example how it effects people living in poverty, teen pregnancy rates, LGBTQ youth, etc). I will also be revising the page "Abstinence-only sex education" in order to make it more general and less focused on the United States. On this article, I will be discussing global outreach, role of religion, and impact with HIV/AIDS. BSchilling (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Vaginal Lubrication entry
Okay, so I'm a Wikipedia newbie, but a grammarian and feminist. I was absolutely shocked and appalled that the photographic image for the vaginal lubrication entry shows an adult HAIRLESS vagina. While it might be argued that this is for illustrative purposes, I maintain that it only fosters the creepy penchant toward underage vaginas exemplified by this practice (and I don't much care what consenting adults do; just don't present it as a mainstream thing). I have no idea of how to replace this image with a standard haired model (presumably it would involve surfing iffy web sites). As the mother of a teen girl, I appeal to someone (perhaps a medical professional?) who agrees with me, and would know how to perform such technological tasks. Thanks. Machione (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- This type of complaint has come up a lot on all pages related to female anatomy. It's difficult to find an image that will make everyone happy. How the vulva *should* look, or whether it should even be shown here at all is a very divisive subject it seems, and there is no governing policy related to the presence of hair that I'm aware of, so I'm not sure what to say. The most anatomically correct image would probably be one with pubic hair, but pubic hair removal has become extremely common as well, at least in the United States, so it's not just a fringe thing. This leads me to conclude that wikipedia should show the highest quality image of the subject available on wikimedia commons, with maybe a slight preference for an image with hair, rather than mandating that the image have hair. Another option is to include both a picture with hair, and one without, as long as the second image adds something to the article.
- I did a scan through the available images, and the currently used image is by far the best IMO. I did not see any better options available with pubic hair that clearly show vaginal lubrication, even to add as an additional image rather than replace the existing one. Uploading new images is always an option, but it's not just a matter of browsing the internet until you find one; the person who uploads the image must have the author's permission to use it.
- I will update the image caption on the vaginal lubrication page to make it clear that pubic hair has been removed. Hopefully that will help to clear up any misconceptions that younger readers could have about the subject. kyledueck (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Feminist strippers
is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines
or whether it should be deleted
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist strippers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lightbreather (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I created a short page on this 12-step recovery group because there was a redlink to it from Sexaholics Anonymous. It's been nominated for speedy deletion. Can I please get some help finding a source to establish its notability please?~Technophant (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Page move proposal is discussed; join in. --George Ho (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)