Fun talk:Breast
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
If you find it offensive,...[edit]
@Rational Thinker why don't you nominate it for deletion? Spud (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- The obligatory, Have I Offended Someone?: Zappa's "Titties and Beer"[1] Bongolian (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Spud and @Bongolian. I think we need open discussion in order to reach an agreement before nominating it for deletion. If you don't know why I think it is offensive, this is because this article is sexist and offensive to women. It treates women as if they are just funny sexual objects. And before you tell me, I know this is a fun namespace article, but I think it is not funny at all. If ypu disagree with me, I encourage you to participate with me in opeb discussion in order to reach an agreement. RationalThinker (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you think it's offensive then don't fuckin' read it. Don't stick a stupid label on it to tell others what to think. All it does is indicate that some random person saw the article and got mad. I would've been swayed by the "it's not funny" argument to a far greater degree than this pearl-clutching attempt to sanitize Rationalwiki of things people might not like.
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Some other old "fun" things which some deemed sexist were deleted in recent years, because when voted on people didn't find it funny anymore. It's easier to get broad agreement on that, because it's a broader position. A portion of people may be offended but not most, a portion may find it cringe-worthy, a portion may just find it dull, etc. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- As someone who's AFAB, I think it's perfectly fine, but I'm just one person. Probably best to get the opinions of others, too. Sable! (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- @SleepySable …So chime in on the AFD, then. --Luigifan18 (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- As someone who's AFAB, I think it's perfectly fine, but I'm just one person. Probably best to get the opinions of others, too. Sable! (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Some other old "fun" things which some deemed sexist were deleted in recent years, because when voted on people didn't find it funny anymore. It's easier to get broad agreement on that, because it's a broader position. A portion of people may be offended but not most, a portion may find it cringe-worthy, a portion may just find it dull, etc. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you think it's offensive then don't fuckin' read it. Don't stick a stupid label on it to tell others what to think. All it does is indicate that some random person saw the article and got mad. I would've been swayed by the "it's not funny" argument to a far greater degree than this pearl-clutching attempt to sanitize Rationalwiki of things people might not like.
- @Spud and @Bongolian. I think we need open discussion in order to reach an agreement before nominating it for deletion. If you don't know why I think it is offensive, this is because this article is sexist and offensive to women. It treates women as if they are just funny sexual objects. And before you tell me, I know this is a fun namespace article, but I think it is not funny at all. If ypu disagree with me, I encourage you to participate with me in opeb discussion in order to reach an agreement. RationalThinker (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Ref notes?[edit]
There are a couple of things in parentheses here that could go in ref notes (mainly "not to be confused with head lice" and "were you expecting something NSFW?"), but I'm hesitant… not because of the topic ban (that only applies to mainspace), but because making an actual ref notes section might ruin the gag of the footnotes section at the bottom. (Splitting the actual references off into a subsection was already pushing the envelope IMO.) Thoughts? --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)