Jump to content

Talk:Sh! Women's Erotic Emporium

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Advertising?

[edit]

I recognise the importance of Sh! as being instrumental in making the sex business accessible to women, but I can see how the article could be seen as advertising. Sh! has latched onto a general, cultural shift in women's sexual liberation, but when it comes to the sex business, it has created a trend and pioneered female access to this particular niche of the industry. However, I'm not sure how this could be conveyed in this entry without arising the suspicion that it is sneaky advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistressofthebiscuittin (talk • contribs) 20:30, 20 June 2008

No problem. It's hard NOT to sound like advertising when starting an article on a business. I'm going to go ahead and zap those templates ... check out the Good Vibrations (business) article and see how close you can come to that in style or tone (and this is an excellent start). I particularly like the NHS citations and stuff like that indicating that this is more than just a porn store. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sh! vs. SH!

[edit]

Hello Hex, I noticed your edit, which you justified with "otheruses link extremely unlikely to be used". Could you please explain how you came to that conclusion? If you're right, then the redirect from Sh! should be removed, too. WRT the relative frequency of SH! and Sh! I so far only have these two Google results: <10k hits for "erotic emporium", and 43k+ hits for "sledge hammer!"+inspector, which hints at the relative frequency of using the short forms being roughly equal, with a slight bias towards the series. This would imply either a disambiguation page or no SH!/Sh! page at all. Of course, if it's the same to you, I can point the redirect at Sledge Hammer!, and place an otheruses link to this page. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no apparent reason why people looking for this television show would search for it here by using an abbreviation of its name. Google gives only 13,000 hits for sh "sledge hammer" -handle, many of which are still false positives. — Hex (❝?!❞) 08:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guess how I noticed this page in the first place? ;) Ok, my insignificant self is not exactly a representative sample, so let's tighten things a notch:
  • "inspector sledge hammer" -handle: 143, with omitted pages 253
  • +"sh!" +"inspector sledge hammer" -handle: 18, with omitted pages 63, the context quotes show many instances of the acronym in use
  • "sh! women's erotic emporium": 133, with the omitted pages the claim on the first page is 2850, but only five pages of results are offered, clicking through to the last page results in "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 847 already displayed." All but the first and about half of the second page are from Londontown.com, and consist of scripted "More local Shopping" suggestions. On the second page are a lot of results from the specialty search engine 192.com.
  • +"sh!" +"women's erotic emporium" -"sh! women's erotic emporium": 24, with omitted pages 56
These results are pretty much consistent with the impressions from the first search.
Since you seem to consider it inconceivable that people looking up a TV series enter an acronym into the search box, I made this little list, which can easily be extended:
  • mv Miami Vice
  • h2g2 hgttg The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
  • st tos tng ds9 voy (don't have to explain these, do I?)
  • wof Wheel of Fortune
  • dw Doctor Who
  • dsds Deutschland sucht den Superstar
  • bb Big Brother
  • msw Murder, She Wrote
  • kr Knight Rider
If you want really hard numbers, you'd have to find statistics on the intended destination of users querying for "sh!". So far, I see no reason for including a path from "sh!" to here, but excluding a path from "sh!" to Sledge Hammer!. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found em! Please compare these traffic stats: sh! Women's Erotic Emporium Sledge Hammer!
Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do consider it tremendously unlikely (I shall ignore your sarcastic link to "inconceivable") that people would look up a television show by its initials. All the links and search counts that you provide above are completely meaningless and irrelevant. This is fancruft of the worst kind; do not add it to this article again. At the very most it would be possible to have a disambiguation page at Sh! (and redirected from SH!), but a disambiguation link on this article is completely inappropriate. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"sarcastic link": It was not intended to be sarcastic, rather a lighthearted reminder that opinions can differ even on matters one finds obvious. I'm sorry it angered you, that was the least thing I had on my mind.
"disambiguation page": That's one of the solutions I proposed in my first comment.
"disambiguation link on this article": I said "to", not "on" on your user page.
I'll proceed as suggested.
Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sh! Women's Erotic Emporium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sh!_Women%27s_Erotic_Emporium&oldid=1210325873"