I just created Category:Sex and sexuality templates - trying to gather up a bunch of navigation templates relating to sex. I added most of the templates I know of, but thought I would mention it in case there are other templates that should go in the category. Zodon (talk) 111, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::Consider this second type of situation, perhaps more controversial than the first, and this time, I will use an example I stumbled across the other day: Your child is interested in fantasy creatures and the like, and looks up "Mermaid". The illustration at the top of this article displays bare breasts (realistic, I might add). The problem is not so much that they are bare (I don't think many people have a problem with bare-breasted animals) as that they are meant to resemble that of a human and are bare. There is nothing that says a mermaid must have bare breasts, in fact, most mermaids published in children's books have some sort of bra or seashells or the like. Now should an alternative image be found which covers the breasts modestly (not just with hair or by facing the opposite direction), this image would be more suitable for the article.
I am new to this project and was wondering what editors are responsible for categorizing (A-Class, B-Class, etc) and assigning importance (Top, High, etc) to articles? While skimming through articles it struck me as odd that Prostitution in Europe is of "Top" importance to this project, yet prostitution occurring just about anywhere else in the world is only of "Mid" level importance. So what makes the prostitution that's going down in Europe so important? More important than the subject of prostitution as a whole which is rated of "High" importance. Confused. ---SeedFeeder (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
In Child sexuality, a "Cultural issues" or something along the line of history/culture (title changed) existed since the articles creation 13:21, 20 June 2003. Two editors have complitly deleted it claiming that the article is about chycological development only, but since 2003, there was a huge number of editors, they all accepted it, so this is bullshit, the problem, is that it implys that in the pacific sexual customs where very liberal, and the above editors are very prudish. This is the section in June 2008. You may whant to do something about it, because discussion, is simply imposible.
Hi, we need a return visit to Template:Sexual orientation. As templates are a bit more visible of a group of articles wider community input is helpful. There is disagreement on whether or not Perceived sexual orientation is a good candidate for inclusion. Relevant discussion here. -- Banjeboi 01:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
Hello, I don't belong to this Wikiproject and I usually don't edit articles dealing with sexuality, instead I go through articles all over Wikipedia and do cleanup work as per Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm posting here about a run-in I had on the Paraphilic infantilism page over two links which are advocacy links for the paraphilia. I removed them as they weren't of a neutral point of view. The only purpose of the links was to "educate" (in the biased sense) people over why the paraphilia must be accepted. I didn't think such links were proper as per our external link guidelines. I looked at the homosexuality article, which I'm sure is highly scrutinized, and I found no advocacy links in the external links section at all. I'm facing resistance from a few editors that describe the website as "not about advocacy but about understanding and comprehension", and then lat
