Talk:Seedfeeder/Archive 1

Category:Wikipedia
Category:Wikipedia has subcategories for Category:History of Wikipedia, Category:Wikipedia controversies and Category:Wikipedia people. Are one or more of these more appropriate than the parent category? Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia people" seems most appropriate. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"He"?
The artist is pseudonymous, but some article discuss "his" work. So, can "his" be used throughout the Wikipedia article? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The Gawker article characterizes Seedfeeder as a heterosexual male, linking to this archived user talk response, so yes, "he".


 * I am sad you didn't nominate this for DYK. I think it's too late. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for point that out. Sorry, I grew tired of nominating articles for DYK. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Link to userpage
Jac16888 removed a link to User:Seedfeeder in this edit on the unsubstantiated grounds of "no value to this". I think that this link was useful and counts as an "official website" of sorts. For instance, Jimmy Wales has a link to his userpage in the external links section of his article; Seedfeeder isn't even notable outside of Wikipedia, so a link to his page is even more important. Pinging, who have expressed interest in this through their edits. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, mentioning Seedfeeder's name in the is appropriate, and I don't think it should be deleted as having "no value" (seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT), especially considering  is also mentioned in the "External links" section. I understand their account is no longer active, but I still think it should be linked – I would suspect that a significant number of people who visit this page via news reports or whatnot would be wanting to see Seedfeeder's userpage. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 16:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the link is necessary, but I don't feel so strongly so I will yield to consensus. On a separate but related note, it might be helpful to create a template for people who are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article and who are also known to contribute to Wikipedia. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I agree. I'm not sure what the wording of that category would be: "Category:Wikipedians with Wikipedia articles"? – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 22:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of a template instead of a category. Something for the external links section to direct readers from someone's Wikipedia article to their (confirmed) user page. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I misread that. Yes, that sounds like a good idea. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 22:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Collaboration?
Is anyone else interested in collaborating to complete this article and promote it to good status? I had hoped to accomplish this, back when I started working on the article, but I moved on to another article (like I often do). If others were interested in collaborating, I would likely find the motivation to "complete" the article. Let me know if you are interested in rolling up your sleeves a bit. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What extra is necessary to bring this to GA status? sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 08:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * make sure info has been extracted from sources already used to construct the article
 * see if the above references (see "Source" section) should be added
 * other sources?
 * typically I request a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors before I nominate an article for GA status, but not required
 * Does that help? Other thoughts?--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Source

 * http://www.ilpost.it/giuliabalducci/2014/12/05/seedfeeder-illustratore-voci-sesso-wikipedia/ --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * « Qui est Seedfeeder, l’iconographe du sexe de Wikipédia ? », Antoine Boyet, Ijsberg Magazine --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: I added these links to the External links section. I am not sure if they include information not presented by the article's prose. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

More sources
--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/4125/Internet/article/detail/1587747/2013/02/28/De-zes-meest-verontrustende-seksillustraties-op-Wikipedia.dhtml
 * http://derstandard.at/2000008788005/Die-Geschichte-von-Wikipedias-bekanntesten-Sex-Illustrators (✅New Media Theorist (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC))
 * https://news.artnet.com/art-world/the-top-10-digital-artworks-of-2014-205405 (✅ New Media Theorist (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * http://natemat.pl/129367,to-on-zilustrowal-seks-w-wikipedii-48-osiem-rysunkow-do-hasel-gonzo-czy-po-prostu-pozycja-misjonarska (✅ — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 14:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC))
 * http://motherboard.vice.com/read/can-men-fake-orgasms-and-other-debates-on-wikipedias-sex-pages (✅New Media Theorist (talk))

Links to artworks
In my opinion, instead of links to the articles using Seedfeeder's illustations, there should be links directly to the art. I suppose showing them in context is useful but direct links to to the art shows it in larger form without having to click again. What do others think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmteknik (talk • contribs) 03:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is probably best to keep the Commons box at the bottom of the article for those who wish to view his collection of illustrations. The article displays two images already, and I am not sure we need to include the "graphic" ones. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean putting more images on to this page at all. I was just proposing that the collection of links to sex act articles instead be links to the artwork for those pages as that is what this article is about, not an index of sex acts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmteknik (talk • contribs) 01:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why can't we link to both? The current version of the article links to the articles, as well as the category in the commons of all his illustrations. --Seedfeeder Fan (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Format of external links
I'm not sure whether this is a better format, but I'm not a stickler for format. If the links are there, then that's what's important. You may want to check to see if WP:EL requires only one external link per line. If it does -- you can maintain your format. If it doesn't, then you should go back to the previous format. --Seedfeeder Fan (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Checking WP:ELLAYOUT, I see nothing about one external link per line, so you're probably good. --Seedfeeder Fan (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Revert
I would like to restore the article to this version, reverting this diff. I would do so myself but the editor made a comment about 3RR on my talk page and I don't want to push the envelope further even though I am just trying to protect the article's integrity. The user is adding unsourced information and unnecessary links to the EL section. Can someone else please revert the article, or can we discuss if any of these edits are constructive? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are essentially attacking me personally, rather than my edits. I have made several edits that I think are improvements, and you are refusing to discuss the validity of any of my edits, insisting on treating them as vandalism. --Seedfeeder Fan (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Improvement I have made:
 * Add details to image captions
 * Add additional articles on Wikipedia using Seedfeeder's illustrations
 * Add links to his pre-retirement and post-retirement user pages
 * Add links to both his sexually-explicit and his non-sexually explicit illustrations.
 * Please address each edit before reverting, rather than blanket deletion of all my edits. --Seedfeeder Fan (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not attacking you personally. I started this discussion specifically to discuss your revisions to the article. The image captions are unsourced. Can you provide a reliable source confirming the image with the woman and vehicle is his only that is not sexually explicit, or that he used another to announce his retirement? Ditto for the other Wikipedia articles you added. If you want to add fellatio and snowballing to the list, then find a reference that confirms he added images to those articles. We can't just expand the list because those articles happen to have his illustrations... that may not be the case forever. The list of illustrated articles, prior to your additions, was fully referenced. No need to display his pre- and post-retirement user pages, not to mention, user pages are not displayed in External links sections. Simply put, I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, but these particular edits are not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK -- lets discuss this point by point
 * Image captions: the list of non-explicit images are listed in the commons, and the fact that he used the kiss-blowing image to announce his retirement can be seen in his user-page history diff. Yes, those are WP:PRIMARY sources, and I understand that secondary sources are preferred to primary sources, but the primary sources can be used for the purpose of WP:Verifiability
 * Does it even matter which image he used to announce his retirement? Is it notable? The lack of secondary sourcing suggests not. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that if an artist's drawing is in the article, then it makes sense to put in the image caption the purpose that the artist drew the image. He obviously drew the image for only one purpose. --Seedfeeder Fan (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "He obviously drew the image for only one purpose." -- That seems like an assumption and original research to me. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree -- which is why that's not what the article says. The article just says that he used the image for his retirement announcement. That's not original research. --Seedfeeder Fan (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP Articles in which his illustrations appear: Again, I understand that these are primary references, but they establish WP:Verifiability. The argument that "that may not be the case forever" is not a reason for exclusion, since the list in this article can be adjusted accordingly (and the likelihood that the illustrations would be removed is low given that the illustrations are related to the article). Another reason, the argument does not apply is that this could be the case for articles that are mentioned by secondary sources. Please note that it is not necessary to show that he added images to those articles, since I re-wrote the intro to the list that the illustrations are used in those articles (and that's easily verifyable)
 * I don't we should be displaying a list of Wikipedia article that currently use his images. We should be displaying a list of Wikipedia article he specifically elected to illustrate. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pre and Post retirement user page: Now you totally lost me. It is better to link to his version of the page, than to the current version of the page, which may be vandalized (as was the case for over two weeks until I fixed it). Since the article is all about his Wikipedia activities (his life outside of Wikipedia is unknown), I feel that it is very relevant to show his user page both before and after he retired. Your statement "user pages are not displayed in External links sections" makes no sense, since there was a link to his user page before I started editing. I think you may be confusing with the guideline that within the WP articles no link should be made to a user page because user pages are not considered encyclopedic, but as an external link, it should be OK, since external links are understood to not be encyclopedic pages.
 * I'd be fine with removing the user page link altogether. I think at the time I was thinking his user page was kind of like his official website. Can we compromise? I just changed the formatting of the user page links so that they appear on a singe and in chronological order. Does that work for you? If you are feeling generous, I'd appreciate a revert to the previous Commons template instead of the two additional EL links to the parent and subcategory at Commons. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * links to both his sexually-explicit and his non-sexually explicit illustrations: no argument provided. The article before I started editing only provided a link to the 3 non-sexually explicit illustrations. He is not known for the 3 non-sexually explicit images that he uploaded to Wikipedia, he is known for the 46 sexually explicit images that he uploaded.
 * --Seedfeeder Fan (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no need to include links to a parent category and a subcategory at Commons. I've never seen this for other Wikipedia articles. We should just display the parent category using the standard Commons template and let uses click one more time if they are specifically interested in accessing the subcategory of explicit images. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since there is no interest in having a gallery of all his work in this article (which is what I'd prefer), then the link to the category in the commons is as close as it gets to a gallery. If you think it would be better to create a subpage within his userspace with such a gallery in lieu of a link to a commons category, be my guest. --Seedfeeder Fan (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think there should be a user subpage either. We don't need to display a gallery of all illustrations. We can simply include the Commons category template at the bottom of the article, directing readers to the parent category at Commons, like we do with all other applicable Wikipedia articles. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with the commons template that existed prior to my edit is that it linked to his 3 images that are not sexually explicit, and that's not what he's known for. I think including two templates, one for his sexually explicit images, and one for his non-sexually explicit images is a little confusing, and the way that the links are currently provided is more clear. --Seedfeeder Fan (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with upmerging the subcategory of explicit images at Commons, leaving just the parent category with all images, but I can't support including multiple Commons links here at English Wikipedia. It is unnecessary. Users accessing the Commons category can clearly and easily see the subcategory of explicit images, and Wikipedia articles almost always display a single Commons template. There is no reason for an exception here. --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 03:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think that the sexually explicit illustrations and the non-sexually explicit illustrations should be merged together, but if that resolves this, then fine. I just didn't like that the original template linked only to his non-sexually explicit illustrations. --Seedfeeder Fan (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to upmerge the Commons subcategory? The original template didn't link to only his non-sexually explicit images, it linked to a parent category with those images and a subcategory with explicit images. Viewing the contents requires just one more click, which is fine. Someone at Commons felt the need to create the subcategory and I am not sure of their reasoning. Regardless, the English Wikipedia article should link to one Commons category, whether it is a single category or a parent category (which are most often the same). --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't necessary agree that "just one more click" is fine. Personally, when I was looking for a gallery of his images, I did not see the link to the bigger gallery, which is why I added the additional link once I found the gallery. --Seedfeeder Fan (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that the paragraph preceding the list of articles starts with "Seedfeeder contributed 48 drawings of various sex acts to 35 English-language Wikipedia articles". Therefore, the list should be increased up to 35 articles (it is currently at 24 articles). --Seedfeeder Fan (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should expand the list to include entries that were not mentioned by an independent reliable source. People can go to Commons if they want to see his illustrations and which Wikipedia articles are using them, if they want. The list prior to your edits told readers exactly which articles he intended to illustrate, not just articles that are currently using his images, which can change over time. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your point about listing the articles that Seedfeeder intended to place his illustrations, but what's wrong with listing all the articles that eventually use his illustrations? I think it shows that his illustrations have a wider appeal than he may have intended.
 * I still don't see your point that the list "can change over time". So what if the list changes over time? We simply press the 'edit' button and update the list. That's not a good reason not to have such a list.
 * --Seedfeeder Fan (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a purpose in listing all articles illustrated by his work. This isn't List of Wikipedia articles illustrated by Seedfeer. For artist biographies, we state their works. We may also state how their work was used beyond their original intent (perhaps in an "adaptations" or "use in popular culture" section, etc), but we would do so using independent reliable sources. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the conversation is losing focus, because I just checked, and one of the listed articles that I listed, and you want removed, 69 (sex position), Seedfeeder did personally include his image in the article. --Seedfeeder Fan (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also true for Snowballing (sexual practice), see this edit. --Seedfeeder Fan (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I think it is best that we go with what independent reliable sources say. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that WP:SECONDARY references are preferred to WP:PRIMARY references, but if no WP:SECONDARY references are available, then we can use WP:PRIMARY references. WP:SECONDARY references are important for establishing notability. Since Seedfeeder's notability is not an issue, using WP:SECONDARY references is not as critical. --Seedfeeder Fan (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am going to have to let someone else chime in here and lend their thoughts. I definitely prefer the list of articles provided by independent reliable sources. I do acknowledge that Seedfeeder added images to other articles, which provides evidence of intent, so if others are comfortable with using primary sources, I would of course yield to consensus. However, I definitely don't think we should expand the list to include any Wikipedia articles using his images (it should only those cited by the sources or illustrated by evidence of Seedfeeder's own diffs). --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Perhaps you want to open a WP:RFC --Seedfeeder Fan (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * My opinion: I preferred the Commons category link to the "sexually explicit" and "non-sexually explicit" divide. Firstly, because I think the section looks better when there's a box at the side than with three extra lines of text that just make the section look even more cluttered. Secondly, I think the list of Wikipedia articles with his pictures should only be those linked to / listed in reliable secondary sources: if necessary, the line above the list could be rephrased to show this is what the list is about more clearly, and the "48 drawings of various sex acts to 35 English-language Wikipedia articles" might need rephrasing as well. Thirdly, I prefer just a link to his userpage. Potential vandalism is not a reason to link to oldids (we're not linking to oldids in the list of articles under Work), and I don't see why it is assumed that those two revisions of the page are the most important; just link to the page as an srlink, and I imagine most of those interested in the oldids will search through the page history themselves. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * +1. I prefer the Commons box to the three lines of text. I am not sure I understand what is wrong with the "48 drawings of various sex acts to 35 English-language Wikipedia articles" line, but do you have any suggestions? I, too, would prefer just a link to his user page and not the diffs, but I was trying to compromise by eliminating the three lines of text. I will return the single Commons box (we can always revert if others prefer the multiple links). I will also revert the list of articles so that it includes only those sourced. We can discuss the addition of specific articles below, if needed. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It was raised above that "48 drawings of various sex acts to 35 English-language Wikipedia articles" seems to contradict the list of (less than 35) articles where Seedfeeder's images are reported to have been used, and there is a distinction between the number of articles he intended to create images for and the number they are currently used in. Looking at it more closely, I can't actually see "35 English-language Wikipedia articles" verified in the cited source, only "48 drawings". — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Gawker article says, "The pseudonymous illustrator ... has contributed 48 of drawings of various sex acts to 35 English-language articles on the free encyclopedia by my count (and dozens more international articles), including fingering, oral nipple stimulation, and something called the Viennese Oyster." This is where the numbers come from. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: revert
I thought the same thing, regarding your recent revert, but actually, I think this source does mention fellatio. Should we add back? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've added it back (albeit in the correct place alphabetically). Sorry about that – I should have checked the sources. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Seedfeeder's goodbye image
Another Believer, regarding this, I'm not sure what you are seeing, but the source quite clearly states, "For now, Seedfeeder's story ends with an image, too. In 2012, after several false alarms and complaints about Wikipedia's decision-making process, he exited the site for good, exhausted, leaving an illustration called Wiki-so-long.png as a final communiqué. One of only two works that doesn't expressly address sex, it features a freckled Asian woman blowing a seductive goodbye kiss to the camera, fingers extended like five stubby phalli. Below it, on a user page that designates the artist as officially retired, lies what reads like a cryptic, nerdy cunnilingus joke: 'So long, and thanks for all the fish.' "

It indeed confirms that the image in question is Seedfeeder's goodbye/retirement image. And besides Andy Cush stating so in that source, I know so since I saw Seedfeeder retire and since Cush interviewed me in that piece. I'm clearly cited in that source. Cush and I talked about different things, and he was aware of Seedfeeder's retirement and wanted to note it. It was after his article that others followed his lead and documented Seedfeeder's work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It appears you were looking at this shorter version of the source. I've upated the link. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, that makes sense now. Thanks for the explanation/clarification. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

EL & WP:NONENGEL
The additions to the External links are interesting. Though the inclusion may be an issue per WP:NONENGEL. Maybe we can incorporate them as citations instead? Just a thought. Thanks.-- Surv1v4l1st (Talk 04:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the goal is definitely to get them incorporated into the article appropriately and used as inline citations. However, right now they are simply listed in the EL section so people participating in the AfD discussion can see there are more sources and to help establish notability. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: I've gone ahead and removed the non-English external links and will leave here: --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This article should be reworked/merged into a general discussion of explict content on Wikipedia
This article survived a previous AFD as a "Snow Keep", but I still think there is something badly wrong with the notability situation. The problem is that every single reference is about Wikipedia. Even the "top ten" nomination, if you read it, says that he "gets the nod" because of contributing to sex education on Wikipedia. There are exhaustive lists of Wikipedia illustrations, references from cracked.com ... come on guys, I may not be qualified to draw an illustration but I recognize a circle jerk when I see one. I don't have anything against Seedfeeder, but this is a poster child for WP:NOTINHERITED.

Most people would take this to AfD, but (a) it seems likely to fail, (b) I see no point having an admin remove any revisions from public view. What I think makes most sense is for people to copy and expand the "Explicit content" section from Wikipedia in some new sub-article like Explicit content on Wikipedia, and add this as a section, so that the proprieties are met. Wnt (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think creating an article like Explicit content on Wikipedia is a good idea, but I'd still prefer to keep this article separate. Seedfeeder could be mentioned in the new article, which would also touch on other information about explicit content. --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 01:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about linking to this article in captions
Editors watching this page may find Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions of interest. This is a discussion of whether or not to mention Seedfeeder's name and link to this article in captions. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)