Talk:Fetish

Proposed deletion
Alright, let's start this off, shall we. Hello, I am here as directed by one of your admins on Twitter with the intent of asking for this page to be removed from the wiki entirely. Now I know you have all your policies about "if it's in the franchise, we will document it" and I get it, it's somewhat commendable and you wanna have that big page count. I'm admin for another wiki myself and I know that having big page numbers is impressive and fun, so I get it, I really do. But as I will highlight, this page ultimately has no reason to exist and I guarantee you that no one will miss it once it is gone and no one will think any less of you for removing it.

At first, we have to ask ourselves; "Why indeed does this page exist? Why is it not enough to just attach a link to the Wikipedia page of the same topic?" Because I'll tell you, no one is going on TARDIS Wiki to read about sex or about the penis or vagina or whatnot - that's what Wikipedia and biology books are for - they're here to read about Doctor Who.

And it is also important to note the actual damage that pages such as this does to the reputation of the Wiki. I'm sorry to tell you and really, it must be really hard to miss but pages like this only serve more ammo for people to mock this Wiki; the more these pages remain, the more the Wiki's reputation falls, further and further. TARDIS Wiki holds some degree of power when it comes to Doctor Who documentation and it is quite awe-inspiring - but we cannot lie to ourselves and pretend like it's not because it's one of the oldest services to exist and people stick around out of loyalty. That doesn't mean, however, that this will always stick and you must ask yourself, do you want to risk it? Do you want all this work to become a footnote? You may find this laughable, after all, where else would people go? Well that may be true for now, but with the continued existence of these pages, and the continued damaged reputation, you can't say it'll remain forever.

I also have a significant number of other points which I shall now bullet-point out for you, a collection of data and reasonings you may find helpful in your decision to remove this page or not.
 * Pages such as this simply do not belong on a Doctor Who Fan Wiki, it only serves as something to mock and if this were another fandom wiki, such as Wookieepedia - which do indeed have pages like this - I would be making the same point, however I find TARDIS Wiki admins easier to communicate to and quickly to respond.
 * The sheer offensive nature of it all; many people find these pages to be plain offensive - no one wants to go on TARDIS Wiki and see slurs targeted towards their sexuality or gender identity. I'm sure you don't believe in these slurs but documenting them in a place they don't need to be is harmful.
 * People find the pages based around specific body parts to be creepy, uncomfortable and objectifying. Is this something you want the wiki to be known for?
 * No fandom wiki needs a page devoted to sexual characteristics unless the wiki is about an adult orientated work. If you feel the need to include this info, it should be on the relevant story’s page.
 * It can make the Wiki just seem immature for immaculately documenting these whilst leaving other parts much more sparse.

Hopefully you can see where I am coming from here and you will join me in my journey to getting these unnecessary pages deleted. Thank you NatalieRobyn812 ☎
 * You make some good points here.


 * That being said, considering the second-to-last point in your bulleted list, we do cover a lot of "adult-orientated works". We are the Wiki about the Doctor Who universe, and while the original series has at times been more child-oriented, we are no more a Wiki about Doctor Who than we are a Wiki about the very-much-NSFW Torchwood, or, for that matter, about the Virgin New Adventures or Iris Wildthyme. So going back again and again to "but think of the children! we are talking about Doctor Who here!" has a subtle but important disconnect to the actual topic of this Wiki. There is a reason we are called the "Tardis Data Core", not just the "Doctor Who Wiki": we are a Wiki about the entire DWU, of which the actual TV series is an important part, yes, but not the most important or inherently superior to other parts of the franchise.


 * All of which is not to defend these pages per se, you understand. Just that if we want to delete them, it won't be because of the "common sense" "what is this doing on the Wiki about Matt Smith and his bowtie" reasons that drive a lot of the Twitter crowd to make fun of us for having these pages. In terms of "but this is the Doctor Who Wiki!", the existence of pages about the Sex Gas or the Time Cock are no less incongruous than the pages about random dirty words from the real world, and yet there is no question of those being taken off the Wiki.


 * However. The slur pages were an embarrassment, and collating all of that into Racism without keeping the offputtingly-neutral-sounding individual pages has not harmed our coverage of the Doctor Who unniverse — it has improved it. I think the argument we could make here, by analogy, is that nothing significant is gained by having pages that just say "Jack Harkness said wiener once" and don't even explain what the word means. (Not that it would be terribly useful if it did explain it, mind; our readers know how to use Urban Dictionary.) We could collate all of this into a beefed-up Sex or Sexuality page (…do we really need those to be different pages?), and those readers who want a clear picture of what kinds of NSFW stuff has been addressed in DWU works, and how, will be able to read through that rather than nigh-meaninglessly, fragmented definitions of slang terms that don't amount to anything.


 * On a policy level, such a high-level merging endeavour would technically be better served by a Forum thread, but well, the Forum is frozen, and the complaints are coming in now. I don't think it would do any harm to start some deletions/mergers already. For example — since this is the talk page you chose to make your statement on — then insofar as the concept of a "sexual fetish" exists in the DWU, it's clearly just a facet of what Sexuality is, so we could already merge the weird list into that and make that page more meaningful in the process. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  16:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I would like to note my agreement with the above (whilst again noting my appreciation of how well the pages I called upon in that discussion about slurs were dealt with), and I will note some ideas I would have in mind for remedying this present unpleasant situation, as if I'm reading the above correctly, this has been decided as the place to discuss all these. (Of course, not being an admin, I don't know what's doable now but it's worth noting all my thoughts even if some can't be tackled until we have the Forums back.)


 * We've shown with the precedent of the outcome of the slurs discussion that my idea that pages can be deemed indecent and unnecessary in a separate page instance. I agree that we could merge the content here into Sexuality.


 * Other pages of note;


 * Casual Sex and Oral Sex, as minimal pages with little individual value, if the content is to be kept, can surely be combined into Sex.
 * The items of anatomy (particularly the two very notables starting with c and starting with p) can surely be redistributed into either the Human page as a new section on human anatomy or perhaps into the currently one-line Anatomy page.
 * Cumming and Orgasm - they're both about the same story, they're both incredibly short, and they're providing no informational value at all. Surely those can merge or go too?
 * Breast - we don't need a dedicated page in my opinion. The breast cancer and breast implants remarks are covered on their own pages (and could also be reiterated where the anatomy stuff would go). The rest of that opening paragraph could then move to wherever the other items of anatomy go. And the CoFD material is actually already sufficiently covered on the etheric beam locators page. The quote from Combat can perhaps fill out Tommy's own page instead, or the plot section of Combat. Ditto for the GBB instance and Tosh & Ghosts of N-Space and Jeremy. Resurrection of Mars - I'll admit lack of familiarity but is there any reason to highlight Lucie's breasts in context of her disguise? I'm struggling on that myself. Then, we're just left with the I Am The Dalek, and Doomsday Manuscript - and I'm sure someone can figure out a proposal for how to tackle those.


 * In a more far reaching point, I think in continued coverage of such matters - wherever they end up - that they be protected pages and restricted to statements based around exact quotations as the majority of this page is. That way, we would constrict ourselves to noting only what has been said in-universe (meaning the instances are documented primarily as a resource for anyone looking for examples of such things as written within the Whoniverse. Again, I'm sure there are a few lines of Moffat that would be understandably sought out by anyone looking at the Wiki for instances of female character dialogue he had that was rather... teeth-grating, if I can put it that way. I know we have to maintain neutrality in writing such a page, but I would think that having a list page instead that is clearly marked as something for people to use in academic discussions about characterisation could be done, and then those using it can make the arguments they wish using the quotations we've listed. If that makes sense?) Keeping such a page protected would also mean that new additions would need to passed through the staff, meaning there'd be no scope for repetition of the Cleavage page situation and its distasteful content.


 * And of course, further down the line, we can - if the content/trigger warnings discussion rules in favour of adding such warnings - add sufficient warning headers about the nature of some of those remarks (Last Night comes to mind...). JDPManjoume ☎  22:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I've left my opinion on the talkpage for Poof and this is exactly why I said that multiple of the same comment should not be left on numerous talkpages as it would lead to the same conversations happening over and over. Regardless, pages such as "poof", in my opinion, could be grouped into "slurs". It doesn't need a page shoving the word "poof" in my face. The nature of Wikis is that there are no trigger warnings. I don't want anyone to come to this Wiki, seeing "poof" and being upset or triggered by it. I agree with the sentiments that anything that happens or is mentioned in an adult spin-off should get equal treatment, but don't quite understand why slurs must be separated individually and given their own pages. It's quite frankly embarrassing when I'm going through social media and Tardis Wiki is, quite rightly, getting slated.


 * Also, as someone who would qualify as LGBTQ+ (regardless of whether or not I identify as it), I don't want to enter this Wiki and see "poof". I just don't want it. It's just upsetting. I remember once on a page regarding sexual identities, I was explaining why the page wasn't completely correct, and it became clear that the editors weren't educated on the subject matter and, understandably, were simply following the rules and writing what they found in the source material. They got quite defensive and wouldn't even consider what I was saying, despite my only trying to help them.


 * Certain subject matters should be done tastefully as to not cause offense. "Poof", and others like it, need deleting and resituating elsewhere. If we are keeping these articles, then they need to be written tastefully and delicately, so that they do not cause offense. Whether you agree or not, it is the truth that the majority of people visiting these pages are only doing so to screenshot and put on Twitter for ridicule. There is nothing of value on these pages for 99% of the fandom. Just my take on it. If I can leave one final opinion, these pages regarding sex, slurs, personal body parts... I'm highly embarrassed by them. I'm always defending this Wiki on social media, but they are totally right about these pages. By all means lock the articles and only allow trusted users who fully understand the topic/subject matter to edit. The  Farty  Doctor   Talk  17:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I thought we actively purged all the slur pages a little while ago, so I'm shocked that poof somehow made it through.


 * It’s also funny you should mention trigger warnings, as that is something I’m hoping to run past the mods when the forums eventually return (complete with thought out ideas on how to incorporate them). WaltK ☎  17:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * To answer this point, I raised in my long post towards the discussion on slurs (if full disclosure be needed, as a gay man and a person of colour) and addressing them that it was a problematic word and of significant offence. But I believe at the time (being unable to presently access the old threads means I rely on memory), I said that I would wait on both that word and the p-word that very directly has impact upon me in a racial context, as slightly less pressing matters, until we could have a discussion about the necessity of the entire category of derogatory names and insults.
 * I'd intended to have that discussion started up in the winter time when I would've had the time to outline how I felt we should remove further ones and perhaps merge the remaining in one singular page on derogatory terms (which we could then carefully signpost), but then we lost the usage of the forums.
 * And yes, I recollect the topic of trigger warning headers coming up within that conversation as something we would also discuss after in a new discussion, particularly in relation to certain pages like Dodo's which really could do with signposting of certain content. JDPManjoume ☎  21:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Aye, a thread on how to implement trigger warnings is definitely on the shortlist of discussions we need to have when we have Forums again. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  21:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed... Just to check - should any points regarding pages under the derogatory terms umbrella be raised here or should they go in one of the talk pages of one of said pages? Just want to check re. the extent of the request for keeping discussions centres in one place. JDPManjoume ☎  22:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, no such discussions belong on this page. If you want to propose the deletion of one or two specific pages, I guess you could do so on the talk pages of those particular pages, although proposals for broader, systematic changes like the introduction of trigger-warning templates would need a thread. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  22:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@User:NatalieRobyn812 it's pretty offensive for you to state that one of the reasons why we allow these pages is because we want a large page count. It's a basic policy that if it's important enough to be in a DWU work, it's important enough for the wiki (and yes I know we're currently discussing whether to delete pages, but that's not my point here). Trying to ascribe motives to other users is a quick path to violating Tardis:No personal attacks, so just make your points without assuming we do things for whatever reasons you can think of thanks Shambala108 ☎  00:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Shambala. Assuming our priority is getting a high page count, instead of this being a series of active decisions we've made as a community, is really condescending. Please read Help:Assume good faith, more than anything.


 * You can contest previous decisions, and discuss other possibilities, even if they go against our current principles for coverage, but don't just assume there's no reason we encourage making pages on minutiae like this. (And as others have mentioned, we're not just about Doctor Who. We actually cover the whole Doctor Who universe, as is... which does include frank discussion of real world topics, and examples of all kinds of behaviour you might not want happening around you.)


 * This is the main thing we're about. Not just the big players like the Doctor and the TARDIS, but everyday topics: like gender and sexuality, pencils, mortgages and rain. There's almost always an interesting perspective, and it's a universe created by these small references, as much as anything else. 06:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Conclusion
Alright, let's get down to the heart of the issue. I'm coming at this from a trauma-informed point of view. I honestly think the suggestion to merge all sexuality- related topics into sexuality because it's somehow a problem to have a page called fetish is.. not great.

Doing this for slurs is massively important. These aren't harmful topics, though. We might have some shame built into discussing these things in our culture, but that doesn't mean they don't merit discussing. And the DWU does go into sexuality, just like everything else in the world of the banal.

And the thing is, covering, say, sexual assault on either sex or sexuality would be harmful. You don't go onto those articles expecting to get that punch (and sexual assault is its own thing from consensual sex or sexuality). Same for describing sexual acts in detail on a page like sexuality, which is also an important page for describing different sexual orientations, historical injustices, homophobia, etc.

Linking off from sexuality to a page on oral sex works just fine, because then readers get to actively decide if they want to read more on that topic. So if you do have a particular trigger, you get to have control over your reading experience. Putting it all on one page means there's no way to navigate this safely if there's one thing you'd rather avoid approaching. (And also, it's just better coverage. You can go into the particular topics more without ending up with massive pages.)

So while I like the energy that went into this, this seems to be the opposite of a resolution to the problem of content warnings. For now, let's consider the matter closed. That said, when we have forums up and running, feel free to bring up these sorts of issues there, where we can actually decide to make large-scale changes. 07:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)