Template talk:Sex editnotice

Issues

Well, there are a lot problems with this template.

There are some problems with the text. The reference to "PC" is wrong. The link to WP:IDONTLIKEIT is wrong, perhaps WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT was meant (but both are intended to refer to talk pages) and anyway WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an essay, and if we're going to link to essays here WP:HARDCORE should probably be in the mix. Anyway the link to WP:IDONTLIKEIT is fairly insulting, and we don't want to be insulting editors when we can help it, I don't think. The link to Help:Options to not see an image is not a good idea, for reasons too lengthy to detail now. The use of wow'd red 64-point headline font is not helpful.

But these are details. Overall, I don't see a reason for this template to exist, but if it were to exist, it'd need a major overhaul. It's pretty one-sided, and we don't need or want that. "Please do not remove content... images because... children might see it" is kind of odd, because that is a valid reason to remove images in some cases, for instance, or at any rate to argue for their removal.

A second paragraph balancing the first could be added, or the text could be rewritten. Of course, deletion of the template altogether is probably the best solution, but before going that way maybe something can be salvaged. I don't have the right text at my fingertips but I'll provide some suggestions presently. Herostratus (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm still struggling with this since I don't see the point of this template. In keeping with the let's-insult-the-editor thrust of the template, balance could be achieved by adding text to this effect:

However, humor aside, this makes the template too long. So trying to redact it to something that will fit on the page and leave room for the person to edit... let's start by getting rid of the screaming red headline font for starters, and maybe something like this:

Something like this? Would this do the trick? This is am improvement I think, although I'm not sure if this is the optimal construction. Herostratus (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Just to clarify where I'm coming from here. This template is used, and is intended to be used I guess, on these types of articles:

1. Articles about sex, such as Sexual intercourse or whatever. List of sex positions. Articles about sex where, all things considered, an illustration is at least arguably appropriate and most people would support that.
2. Articles about extreme sex, where there is some overlap between "sex" and "batshit insanity", such as self-mutilation (e.g. Cock and ball torture (sexual practice) and what have you). Where #1 shades into #2 there is a gray area I suppose, but some articles such as the one cited are clearly on the "OMFG" side of the boundary.
3. Articles about pornography, where the illustration itself is perforce pornography.

We probably shouldn't have illustrations for articles in the #2 and #3 categories. This is arguable and reasonable people can discuss this. The template as it now stands implies otherwise. For instance, the article Gokkun. This is activity that occurs only in pornography (at least, there are no reliable sources indicating its prevelance at notable levels in any population). So there shouldn't be an illustration -- at least, arguably. In fact there wasn't, but a number of very-low-edit anon users kept adding one in:

• Here we have editor 75.88.127.62 making his very first edit to the Wikipedia: adding an image to this article. His second edit ever on Wikipedia is to state that discussion on this subject is to be ended, period. This person's editing history began and ended on May 8, 2010, with a total of nine edits.
• Here we have editor 24.143.15.253 making his very first edit to the Wikipedia: adding an image to this article. This edit constitutes his entire career at the Wikipedia, so far.
• Here we have editor 68.34.31.108 making his very first edit to the Wikipedia: adding an image to this article. The entirety of his career here so far (seven edits, all on August 1) consist of re-adding the image or using his deep experience of the Wikipedia to explain why he should be allowed to do so.
• Here we have Ashemon tag-teaming with 68.34.31.108 to restore the image. Ashemon does have 61 edits, but 57 of them were in 2007-9; this was his first edit in almost a year.

And we see this sometimes in other places. This is basically trollery, and the template shouldn't protect this. At the least it should say "do not remove or add images without consensus". (Arguably it should say nothing and not exist, since all articles are subject to WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, but since it does exist, it need to be reformed. So this is why I changed it. Herostratus (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, came up with this:

This seems reasonable to me. Herostratus (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)