Talk:List of fetishes

Articles to merge
The decusstion for the merging of the articles are on their talk pages, sorry for any confusion this may cause.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be much better to put a complete list of the articles you propose to be merged in a single place for discussion. Or better yet, mock up what you think a post-merge article should look like on a subpage, and lets have a look at how it would turn out - I'm all for bringing information together if it fits together! bd2412  T 21:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now, right after the merge, the articles will be come sections, and be basically a cut and paste, after a few days I'll reformate the information so it looks something like the List of sex positions. It will take a few days to get the subpage ready though, or a few hours If I work really hard :) I'll see what i can do later tonight.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 21:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No great rush, my friend, the encyclopedia isn't going anywhere! ;-) bd2412  T 04:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, here's what I got so far I'll probably add more tomorrow or to night, but I hope this gives a general idea of what the article would look like, if it's not deleted.


 * And yes, I did change the title of the article, but I can't do it on this article right now because of the AfD.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging all the "uncommon" fetish in to a single list is a very poor idea. Firstly it imposes a value judgments that a fetish is uncommon, and placing school girl in "uncommon" is a rather American perspective. I would suggest the author visit adultwork.co.uk and see how many women in the UK are selling pictures of themselves and escort services around "school girl uniform". If the fetish is common in the UK it seems to be even more so in Japan. Wikipedia must avoid the social prejudices of Americans.

Beyond that placing all the diversity of fetishes in a single list is impossible and restrictive, and simply restates the predominate discursive formation of our time that hetero sexuality using sexual organs is proper, and everything else must be classed in a category fetish. There are a massive number of fetishes in the world.

I fail to understand why someone can't just write an article listing all the fetishes they can think of with links to the wikipedia articles. This would expand the knowledge formation, give a central location for those wanting to see the fetishes categorized together without imposing the cultural heavy implications that placing them all in one group and deleting the group would mean.

Terrible idea, forget it. It actually is a perfect example of the abuse and misuse of Wikipedia, and creation of fictions that claim to be in the interest of, I don’t know fewer larger articles, rather than capturing the wild world of knowledge formation that actually is out there.Rhooker1236 15:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Orly, I originally suggested this on this AfD; note the admin at the top saying that merging all the stubs into one list would be a good idea.


 * Maybe about 30% of the fetishes on wikipedia have notable resources, and the other 60 percent could be put up for deletion at any time; they whole idea of this 'terrible idea' is to ensure that all the articles that could be deleted could be put into one list, that way, not only will it be easier to 'save' more fetishes from the axe, anything that really does need to be deleted, like 'insertion fantasy', or what have you, can be removed without a great big long AfD discussion. In case you had not noticed, the template down the bottom is just that list with links as you seem to be talking about.


 * I seriously doubt that you even read all of my statements regarding this topic, for example, my statement that the name was all I could think of.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 19:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Stupid idea ** respect the individual fetishes!! How would *you* like to be merged with other individuals? Write a general fetish article.Sanocki 03:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please remain WP:CIVIL. You are more than welcome to discuss the merits of this idea (or the lack thereof), but it is not civil to outright insult the ideas of editors.  -- Black Falcon 04:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * oppose merge that would make it a huge article, not a list at all. Chris 09:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose the merging as well, as this would make a long list that is already addressed by a template - interestingly enough, the one that is already on the page... SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merging all of the higly similar fetishes may be a good idea. Possibly a footwear fetish to cover socks, shoes and boots and such. the same could be applied to clothing.

Name of article
I think this is a good idea to bring some of the short stubs to one place, but wouldn't a better name be simply Uncommon fetishes? The word list implies to me, well, a simple list with minimal description. Robotman1974 21:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree it would be good to combine articles into one, but I think "uncommon" is a bad idea - we're just going to have endless debates on whether fetish X is "common" or not (e.g., I'm not sure Schoolgirl uniform fetish should be considered uncommon). I think List of fetishes would be better. The point is, I presume, to merge articles where there is little content on their own page, and not because they are "uncommon". Mdwh 22:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that the name is not final, I couldn't think of anything to describe this, so this is why it's called what it is.


 * One solution could be to create an article gathering the clothing-related fetish stubs and another for stubs that focus on practices and objects. Clothing fetishes and Uncommon fetishes perhaps? Robotman1974 23:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

For ease of discussion, here are all the articles we're talking about: My two cents are that Shoe fetishism, Sock fetishism, Boot fetishism, and Fetish footwear should be combined into one article on footwear fetishisms; Schoolgirl uniform fetish should stay separate; the remaining stubs should be divided between fetishes about otherwise regular articles of clothing (Jacket fetishism, Jeans fetishism, Stocking fetishism, Panty fetishism, Glove fetishism, Glasses fetishism) and everything else (Spandex fetishism, Fur fetishism, Mask fetishism, Gas mask fetishism, Fruit fetishism, Foreskin fetish). bd2412 T 04:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Panty fetishism
 * Schoolgirl uniform fetish
 * Spandex fetishism
 * Stocking fetishism
 * Uniform fetish
 * Sock fetishism
 * Mask fetishism
 * Boot fetish
 * Shoe fetishism
 * Jacket fetishism
 * Jeans fetishism
 * Glove fetishism
 * Glasses fetishism
 * Gas mask fetishism
 * Fur fetishism
 * Fruit fetishism
 * Foreskin fetish
 * Fetish footwear


 * I hope to add more articles, but when I was tagging these articles this afternoon I got a headache...


 * If you see a fetish article that's a stub feel free to tag it.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 07:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just write an article about fetishes in general, and link to all of these fetishes. Combining them in one place will make a massive article which will impose a catagorisation that they are all the same, but having a hub for them to spoke out of is a good idea for finability.

Good wikipedia should give voices to knowledge formation not included in offical encyclopedias (we can all buy them) while still promoting finability and discoverability. A single article gains for finability while damaging respect to each as a unique sexual idenity or practice.
 * You do realize that all information on wikipedia has to be notable right? a list of all the less notable fetishes would be more notable then all the little articles with two lines on them. Yeah, Wikipedia has tons of great information in it about topics most Encyclopedias don't but you can't just let everything in.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 19:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not use List of fetishes? The common fetishes can be included with a short description and main to point to their individual articles; the less common ones can be transformed into list entries. That way, there's no need to segregate "common" and "uncommon" fetishes. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 20:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that would be the best way to do this. I've been working on some personal research into sexuality and the way the fetishes are listed now is quite hard to work with, having a total, comprehensive list that has a short bit of information and links to any with a enough info for a separate page would work well, I think. Scaper8 08:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that there is also Sexual fetishism, which does this to some degree. Mdwh 13:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

NAME CHANGE
As many, many people have noted, the name sucks, so i'm moving it to List of fetishes. I hope this is more agreeable with everyone.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging articles
I've merged to articles today, but I'm not really sure I should merge some of the other articles; Although no one has replied to the message on the articles themselves, I think we should focus on merging just the stubs for now.

If someone could please help rewrite these articles, I'm rather horrible at rewriting myself. Also, If you feel an article which I've put up but not merged should be merged, feel free to do so.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 21:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Original research
I've added the original research tag, a couple sources are cited, but it's not clear what they're meant to support, and quite a bit of this article's content appears to be personal knowledge. If the listed references really do support all of the content, inline citations might be a lot clearer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Merging
Taking deletion off the table, what about a merge with Sexual fetishism? We seemed to have a decent showing on that one in the recent AFD debate, so it seems worth a mention. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Being bold
I'm merging and redirecting all the different garment fetish articles that cannot support their own articles into a "Garment fetishes" article. This will take a huge amount of work away from this list as half of the unsourced and/or original research fetish articles we have are garment related. Check out the (very, very) early build of the article in my sand box. My hope is that with some basic sourcing for the simple overarching concept of "Garment fetishs" established we can find a source or two for each different type.

As it stands now I'm hoping for two opr three sourced paragraphs in the intro and then one source for each entry. The thing is I'm going to need alot of help and everyone here seems interested in cleaning this section of wikipedia up. Please tell me your thoughts and if anyone is inclined to help that would be great! NeoFreak 17:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * IY's a good idea Neofreak, but I'm not sure how much help I can give.--<span style="color:red; font-family:Old English Text MT, Papyrus;">Honeymane <span style="font-family:Klingon, QuigleyWiggly;">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 12:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a bad idea. It does, however, need a reorganization.  I'll play around in your sandbox and see what I can come up with... SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to tinker, as I said it's a very early build and I need all the help I can get. I'm worried that unless some sources are found for more brief mentions like the Jacket and Glove fetishes they won't be able to make the final cut. NeoFreak 14:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, in both of the cases that you mentioned, the problem is that the parent articles for those respective sections contain no references. Fixing the parent articles, in my opinion, takes a higher priority than working on that, since one can provide instant references for the other (no rule about citing the same source twice!).  SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The minimal references to the List page doesn't seem fair to the articles that actually do have a good source of information. Why not leave them be and let them expand over time? Patience is sometimes needed in order to obtain a good article. Just because an article is small doesn't mean it won't expand over time. Premier Tom Mayfair Talk F@H 20:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Defloration/Virgin Fetish
Umm. . . anybody see any sources on this one?