Talk:BBC (disambiguation)

Other items
BBC Basic should be there, right? I don't do these sorta things.109.153.55.173 (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I added BBC BASIC. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

BBC as a porn/sexual term
May I ask why the addition of BBC as a porn/sexual term had been reverted countless times, even though it is a used term in somewhat reliable sources such as huffpost and also has a wide use in books about human sexual behaviour  ? --Gogolplex (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation pages are not a glossary for slang terms. Unless there is a Wikipedia article with relevant content supporting the usage, there is nothing to disambiguate within the context of Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 19:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a Wikipedia page about it, Race and sexuality, so I believe inclusion is justified. Folx (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq, in accordance with MOS:DABPIPE, would it be acceptable to write the following?


 * "BBC", a term relating to racial fetishization of black men

Folx (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see why Wikipedia should be used to promote a troll term and I don't know if "fetishization" is supported by reliable sources (I know that's in the article, but I don't know if it is justified). Do you have an opinion? Johnuniq (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That fetishization claim in the article is sourced to Rolling Stone magazine, which is a very weak source for something that should have an academic source. I oppose listing it here. Since BBC in the porn sense isn't an article, it doesn't need to be listed here. We are WP:NOTEVERYTHING; if people want to find out about such slang there are other sites for that. Crossroads -talk- 05:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Crossroads and User:Johnuniq, I added some academic references to the article, and I can add more if you wish. Folx (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly support including something like this entry (see revision suggested below). This is a very common term which has entered mainstream parlance (mostly via 20+ years of Internet memes though also some movies; it's comparable to MILF and several other sexual slang acronyms). And the article section in question even covers the term (both abbreviated and not) in considerable detail, so it  the proper target.  However, the above draft needs work: Change it to "sexual fetishization"; I don't think "racial fetishization" is a meaningful phrase. If we really want "race" in there, there'll be a way to do it. Actually, per WP:NOTCENSORED and MOS:DAB, we should not be hiding what the acronym stands for, either. And MOS:ABBR: acronyms and other abbreviations do not take quotation marks. And avoid saying "black" twice.  So:
 * BBC (big black cock), a term relating to racialized sexual fetishization of men of African ancestry

I did a search....seems to not be in common use. I've found three lists with 15-20 definitions of BBC and it wasn't on any of them. Although I did find it defined as such in a couple of specialty places. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion. A Google search for "BBC porn" returns over 9 million hits, and that's just the way of the world. BD2412  T 20:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment should we create a redirect and list that on the dab? A Cirrus search currently doesn't come up with the suggested target. Certes (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would think so. There are sources enough to validate that. See, e.g.:
 * BD2412 T 23:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I created and added a link to the redirect BBC (pornographic term). (I realize it's not exclusive to pornography, but Race and sexuality mostly discusses it in that context, and any other disambiguators I could think of - like "(sexual slang)" - felt more awkward. But open to other options.) Colin M (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Granted this is a redirect, but typically entries should simply be listed with a link to its expanded form per MOS:ACROTITLE.—Bagumba (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * True. I'll go ahead and create Big Black Cock/Big black cock with the same redirect targets. BD2412  T 04:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No objection to also having a redirect for the expanded form, but I would somewhat prefer using a BBC (disambiguator) style redirect on the dab page, because the initialism is used much more frequently than the expanded form. (I would compare it to how we have the article title MILF rather than Mother I'd like to fuck - though that's not a perfect analogy, as in that case the slang term is the ptopic for the initialism). Colin M (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Include the term. This is a no-brainer: 1) usage is widespread and long term, making searches for this meaning very probable, and 2) Wikipedia has good, RS'd content on it that provides much more context than a dicdef. (Er, dickdef?) Why wouldn't we make that content accessible? I can't see a reason that isn't based on squeamishness. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 15:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, and target redirects to Race and sexuality (where it's described and referenced) per Folx. Why should our readers have to go to wikt:BBC to find out what it means? Narky Blert (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Pornocruft. It doesn't point to an article, which is not a deal-killer since links sometimes don't, but they usually do... and if they don't it's data point that the entity might not be that notable. And this one isn't.
 * Include the term. This is a no-brainer: 1) usage is widespread and long term, making searches for this meaning very probable, and 2) Wikipedia has good, RS'd content on it that provides much more context than a dicdef. (Er, dickdef?) Why wouldn't we make that content accessible? I can't see a reason that isn't based on squeamishness. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 15:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, and target redirects to Race and sexuality (where it's described and referenced) per Folx. Why should our readers have to go to wikt:BBC to find out what it means? Narky Blert (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Pornocruft. It doesn't point to an article, which is not a deal-killer since links sometimes don't, but they usually do... and if they don't it's data point that the entity might not be that notable. And this one isn't.
 * So... I've dealt on occasion with porno stuff, and three things I've noted is that 1) porno fans think this stuff is real, 2) they are out to use the Wikipedia to imply that, and 3) they have succeeded, a lot more than you might think (a lot of people read us and we do set norms).


 * We don't have to play into that if we don't want to. If the link is going say not "it's a weirdo racist fiction trope, here's the link" but rather "So many Black bucks have huge units that there's even a word for it, here's more about that", then just forget it. And it does, and I guess that's not going to change. We don't need it. It's not a net benefit to the encyclopedia to be implying that sort of thing, so just leave it off altogether. Herostratus (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * (Former comment was "Only if the text is fixed. I just now rewrote it, and if that stays (or something of that general effect), then fine; if not, count me out and switch my vote." [It didn't stay, so count me out.] The description ("an initialism of 'big black cock'") doesn't tell me much or work for me. "a racist sexual fetish term in pornography" does. After all, the term is sky-is-blue racist, and the target does start right in (in the first sentence) with "fetishization" and "porn". Aren't these a little more important and enlightening about the entity than what it technically stands for? These things -- that it's racist and offensive, that it's a fetish term, and that it's something you see in porn shows rather than rel life or general discourse -- are the key things to know about the entity. (That's why the target starts with "Most commonly, black men are expected to be hyper-masculine and hyper-sexual, and their fetishization is seen predominately throughout porn" before they even define the initialism, I suppose. Why should we do worse.) And for another thing, it's going to get the people who are deleting the entry off our backs and save the drama. It's fine to have offensive terms, but we need to label them as offensive for the benefit of the reader and because some editors like us to, even if you don't. Herostratus (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC) Updated 19:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree on a couple grounds. One is that the purpose of the text in a dab entry is not to give a summary of the topic - it's only to disambiguate. MOS:DABENTRY: Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. It's not like there's another pornographic term BBC we need to distinguish from which also stands for 'big black cock' but which isn't a "racist sexual fetish genre". The other reason is that it's generally not appropriate to use an evaluative label in wikivoice. e.g. we would never describe the The Room as a bad movie, even though basically the whole world agrees that it's bad; instead, we say things like "A number of publications have labeled The Room as one of the worst films ever made." Colin M (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the question of whether the term is "racist" is more complex than the discussion represents. BD2412  T 17:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a good look. We don't play oop-we're-just-neutral-here with stuff like "Rapemeat, a descriptive term used for women" and whatnot. (I hope.). Just laying out "big block cock" without further explaino is basically being racist in our own voice, or anyway closer to it than I like (I said more about that in my comment above). Let's not do that. So really, just leave it out altogether then. Sounds like a dramafest and it's not worth it for something so obscure and cluelessly discordant to our readers of color. Herostratus (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A Google search for "BBC porn" returns over a billion hits. That is not obscure. Frankly, there are enough sources discussing the topic to create a freestanding article on the subgenre. BD2412  T 20:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "The (pornographic term)" qualifier indicates that we are listing a non-neutral term. Further explanation can be found in the article.  Certes (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Right. I've been here a long time and I understand that I'm not going to get thru to you people on subjects like this, nor get you to agree that WP:IAR (specifically, in this case, that being in the wrong side of history is not long-term beneficial to the project) trumps all that. It's fine, bless your hearts and you do you. Anyway, I'm not all that interested in engaging on this subject with editors who write "I think the question of whether the term is 'racist' is more complex than the discussion represents" in context of the material being discussed here. The African American Flag.jpg Herostratus (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is more complex because we are only looking at sources viewing it as a racist identifier, and not at black performers and producers in that space using the terminology to identify themselves and their own products. BD2412  T 22:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's racist. Did you take a look at the link target. It may be summarized as "HOLY SHIT IS THIS SHIT RACIST" and there are plenty of good refs. You want to elide what the target is in the link description. Why. You say you have other sources and can change the target article, do that, let's see them, and then we can talk.


 * And I mean of of course the actors are Black. What else would they be. And it's their paid job. So that's going to color anything they say probably. But let's see the refs. Herostratus (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not say that I have other sources, I said that there are both performers and producers of this content who are themselves black. BD2412  T 02:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ohhhhhh, I see. I think you'd better stop before you make a misstep, to be honest. Herostratus (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The first line of Hitler (disambiguation) provides a good model. We don't need to mention that Adolf was racist to disambiguate him from other Hitlers. Certes (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well of course we don't. We do here though. Herostratus (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't see a point to add pornographic material here, and there are other non-sense slangs included in the "Other uses" section. There are so many slangs used in the pornographic industry, it is not necessary to add each and every one. How does it encourage expand knowledge of future generations, it goes against WP:AIM QuantumRealm (meow • telescope) 18:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * See WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:DABMENTION. There does not need to be an article on a topic for it to be included in a disambiguation page. BD2412  T 18:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I made a proper RfC below. Herostratus (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Blatantly noteworthy and should be mentioned. All "oppose" votes are thinly veiled IDONTLIKEIT nonsense.★Trekker (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per BD2412. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support If it isn't derogatory to black men, then I absolutely support it!! QuantumRealm (meow • pawtrack) 09:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The other uses section doesn't need the following
British-born Chinese "BBC", a song on the Jay-Z album Magna Carta... Holy Grail Bale, Benzema, and Cristiano, Real Madrid footballers Barzagli, Bonucci, and Chiellini, Juventus and Italian national footballers BBC, the Big Block Chevrolet engine BBC (pornographic term), an initialism of "big black cock"

None of them follow WP:PURPOSE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuantumRealm (talk • contribs) 18:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a disambiguation page. WP:Disambiguation applies, not some general essay. older ≠ wiser 18:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC about wording for the "big black cock" link
What's better wording for the link to BBC (pornographic term)? or or
 * 1) BBC (pornographic term), an initialism of "big black cock"
 * 2) BBC (pornographic term) ("big black cock"), a racist fetish genre of pornography
 * 3) Other (specify)

(N.B. there's some discussion in an above thread, "BBC as a porn/sexual term". Herostratus (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * I would go with something along the lines of "BBC (pornographic term), initialism of "big black cock" in racial fetish pornography". The first line says too little and the second one makes a judgment better worked out in the linked article section. BD2412  T 19:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1 or BD2412's proposal. I've been following this discussion from the sideline and agree with BD2412's points. Per DABENTRY, 1 is fine, but if a compromise is a must go with BD2412's proposal.Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support BD2412's proposal. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. I'm also fine with BD2412's suggestion as a second choice, but I don't think the extra text is necessary, per MOS:DABENTRY: "Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link." Colin M (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1 or BD2412's proposal. Option 2 seems less than ideal per BD2412's reasoning. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 3 Support the proposal by . --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * BD2412's proposal looks good. Herostratus (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC) EDIT: I wanted to add that Option 1 is not OK in my book. The main thing about the entity is that it's a racist meme. That's the key thing about the entity (based on what the target says). If for some reason you felt the need to keep the descriptor part really short, "racist porno meme" or something would be better than just saying "big black cock" which doesn't tell the reader much. It's actually borderline peculiar to avoid explaining the entity accurately, particularly on such a fraught subject. I actually prefer 2 but BD2412's proposal is reasonable. Herostratus (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1 or BD2412's proposal. Personally I think 1 is adequate but several experienced editors clearly disagree. 2 is overkill.  Certes (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1 or BD2412's proposal. per the above comments. Sea Ane (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1 is enough. Keep descriptions short. Context can be established from the target article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. Per MOS:DABENTRY - "Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link." Narky Blert (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1 Yes, it should be fine. QuantumRealm (meow • pawtrack) 20:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1 Descriptions should be kept short, and mentioning 'pornography' when there is already '(pornographic term)' is needlessly redundant. Some1 (talk) 03:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1 as 1st choice; BD2412's version as 2nd choice (I agree that it's a bit redundant since "pornography" is already included in the disambiguator). Version 3 is out of the question; this is not SocialJusticeBrowbeatingPedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1 seems like it covers the topic pretty thoroughly, since (pornographic term) is already included in the title of the linked page, and the page itself talks about the racial aspects of the term in great detail. jp×g 20:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1Yousef Raz (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)