Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sybian/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Sybian

edit

Note: If you have questions/comments/objections to this being put on the front page, please leave them on my talk page or this talk page. It is about a sex toy, so I know there will be objections.
Disclaimer aside, this article was brought up from a stub to what we have now. Of course, we added what we could add without spamming for porn sites and included non-nude images, but it has come a long way. It was copyedited and proofread, was at Peer Review for some time. It should be good to have a FA about a sexual topic, but this could test many unforseen subjects. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Can an article be a FA, but not useable on the Main Page? Is there a policy on this? I don't think this should ever appear so prominently on the Main Page, but to me that doesn't mean it should be on a list of the highest quality articles. ike9898 02:44, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • If the subject is not appropriate, it can be marked as not featured on the front page, but can still gain Featured status. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, an article can be featured but considered off-limits to the main page. The only instance of this is Wikipedia, which is a featured article but considered too self agrandizing for purposes of the main page, so it will never be the daily featured article. →Raul654 20:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. All but one of the images are claimed as "fair use". Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, so fair-use images should be avoided if at all possible. --Carnildo 04:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, most photos re-appear on various websites, and I am not sure about the original copyright nor I am not sure who took them when. If that is the case, I will make all photos that you think are copyright issues PD, since the main source is not known. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tagged them all. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn't fix anything. You can't go around claiming to release other peoples' work into the public domain. --Carnildo 07:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if I cannot seem to use Fair use, and the original author and date of pictures are unknown, what I am supposed to use then? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can continue using fair use. I don't think (personally) it's that much of an issue, though everyone's right in saying that we shouldn't be encouraging these images at all. Ronline 11:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, Carnildo is following policy: "Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status. However, an article does not have to have a picture to be featured." However, Carnildo and I should try to find out what is considered acceptable copyright status. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I went ahead and put them all back to fair use. Until I hear something different, I am sticking to those. I will try to find some photos either today or tomorrow. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • If yall would like to find some copyright OK pictures, I went onto Google and looked at [1]. Of course, if you do not like porn, there is always a filter you can use. But, this is mainly for my point that it is not known who took the photos when, so that was why I was thinking PD first. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • What are you supposed to do? You could continue using the images under fair use, in which case I would continue to object. You could remove the images, and I'd remove my objection, but that would leave the article a little light on images. You could track down the creators of the images, contact them, and ask for GFDL/Creative Commons licenses. You could find other images where the creators are easier to determine, and ask for those images under a suitable license. You could contact the uploader of the one free-use image in the article, and ask for more pictures. You could find a store selling those machines, and ask for one to be taken out of the box so you can photograph it. And I'm sure there are other things you can do. --Carnildo 03:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Notwithstanding the image copyright issues (which do need to be resolved), this article is clearly not up to the standard of a featured article. I find that it reads like an FAQ / "about our product and its history" page off of the manufacturer's website. There is little or no objective commentary; no sales figures; no discussion of its niche use in porn; no discussion of its impact on society (rather, subsets thereof); really, nothing but a history of development and a sales pitch ("negatives - it costs too much"). I would suggest sending back to peer review for more work. - Bantman 02:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • The use in the porn industry I tried to avoid, since it's just like any other sexual thing: someone put up sites showing girls riding these machines. I do not know which site came first, what sites are out there, and then, it will begin the slope of advertising/spamming, and I refuse to do that. I do not have sales figures, but I can get that. As for it's impacts on society, I do not know, except woman get better orgasms. As for it sounding like a sales pitch, where does it sound like that? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, my concerns are similar to Bantmans. The article needs sales figures, how popular is the product since it is an expensive sex toy, is it stocked in most sex shops? If you're going to go to the effort of writing a FA quality article about a sex toy you may as well mention its specific use in porn. There should be some images that have free copyrights, assuming there is a patent, diagrams should be avaiable and you could make free images from there. Since the intention of the creator seems to be to make a tool for sex therapy, the article more that covers what the makers think, what do sexologists think of the product? The first paragraph of the concerns section really is of no relevance, at least in regard to concerns people may have about using the product and should be moved or removed.--nixie 04:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I searched for Sybian and problems, all I got were about guys having penile problems and women having no problems getting orgasm. I lose there. Same thing for the sales figures, all I get are direct sales websites. Once again, I lost. Photos, not even looking for something good, but I am about to delete a few. I got rid of two, one more can go. If people want to see an attachment, they can look at the first photo. I might write something on the porn use, but I am not sure how I can present that. Pretty much, I lost. Raul, you can close it, since I cannot answer some of the objections here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The references section has 10 entries, 6 of which are from sybian.com, and 2 of which are from toyslove.com (a page which appears to have been created specifically to be linked to from wikipedia?). Can the inline citations be tweaked so we don't have repeat entries listed in the references? I would also like to see some sales figures. Are they constructed "on demand?" -- Norvy (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sybian/archive1&oldid=225067909"