Talk:Dominance and submission

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 29 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Juliahonda. Peer reviewers: Amilon3, Anastasia.Shylnov.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Pet girl nude.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent Edits

@Juliahonda:

Pulled quote: “This form of sexual contact and pleasure has been shown to only please a certain minority of people.[1]”

Would you be able to specify a percentage or ratio (i.e., 1 in every 50 people)? Do people in committed relationships recorded higher participation or is this completely random? I would also consider placing this sentence in the second paragraph in the overview section instead of the introduction as it seems a bit choppy in its placement.

Your history section needs citations. There are a lot of claims made and it would be good to include the reference for which you received this information in case someone wants to further their research or cross reference with another source. Same goes for your overview section. I see that you put a reference to source 2, but source 2 needs to be referenced throughout that whole paragraph as this information is coming from a study. Editors need to make sure the information is being pulled from a reliable source. Also, the paragraphs underneath your new one in this section should be placed above the research studies as it flows better.

I’m pretty sure you are still working on the terminology section, but make sure you put the additional information on the terms top/bottom together. LGBTQ power dynamics section could be better structured. I feel that the content is a bit choppy. Again, not sure if you are still working through structuring the content, but it seems like it.

The safety section seems a bit underdeveloped. Would you be able to add some information describing the points already mentioned? The section on consent and contracts has a section on safe words that is kind of redundant to the overview section. Maybe you can add a sentence in overview about safe words and stick the bulk of information on that in consent and contracts. I would also make use of subheadings as there is a lot of information on the different terms that would serve a better if they were clearly identifiable.

Overall, make use of subheadings for the bulky paragraphs to help with structuring information. Also, make use of your references. You make a lot of claims that need to be backed by a source. Amilon3 (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Expanding the Terminology section

A recent series of edits/reversions involved the addition of a number of terms to the Terminology section, featuring edit summaries including "added some terms that are heavily used in the communities", "This section deals with terms directly related to Dominance & submission, and not with any term related to BDSM", and "Most of them do have to do with D&S, or at least, you haven’t made a good case that they don’t".

As stated in the "reversion" edit (removing the added entries), this section should not be construed to try to include any term related to BSDM. At the top of this section, there is a note to a Main Article, Glossary of BDSM, which is more appropriate for a list of terms. At the bottom of this article, there is also a template for Outline of BDSM which is even more inclusive. Even before these recent edits, this section was unnecessarily long, including "vanilla" and "dungeon monitors" -- they are related, but expand beyond what is mentioned in the second/large paragraph in this section. That paragraph is a fine introduction and provides most of what is really needed in this article (which is already sizable), leaving the Main Article to handle the rest. Additionally, having every paragraph here start with the phrase "The term whatever..." makes for poor reading.

I would again revert the new additions and also the other extraneous terms, directing the reader to the Glossary and/or the Outline as needed for more information. What we have now is bloated and only invites additional bloat. Should we also define cages, chastity devices, collars, leashes, whips, crops, and everything else already in the Glossary, on this page? Of course not. HalJor (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The new terminology items are wordy and not particularly well done otherwise (e.g. citation spacing). It reads as though it should be a list (yes, "The term..." is wordy and redundant). Also, we don't need a random subset of the linked glossary article. Since it's a contested edit, the items should be removed now, pending consensus to have them added, per WP:BRDDISCUSS. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the section again, using the policy basis that it is a continuously contested inclusion. Mathglot claims that discussion and consensus are required for removal, but given that each time the section has been inserted it's been just as quickly removed it is quite obviously not a consensus based decision to include it. Discussion and consensus for inclusion needs to be attained here, not for removal. Curved Space (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly a bit of nonsense, not supported by any guideline or policy. In expanding an article, as long as the material is relevant to the topic, and all assertions are verifiable by reliable sources, and meet other standards like neutrality, and due weight, they can be added. Removing without cause could be seen as disruption, ownership, or censorship. No discussion, or consensus, would be needed to remove challenged material based on unverifiability or other valid reason, but I just don't like it is not a valid reason, sorry. Mathglot (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:EXAMPLEFARM and WP:TRIV were cited in this edit and, oddly enough, the former was cited here, in what seems to be a similar reversion. I thought the added list was wordy, repetitively so, and duplicated the effort at Glossary of BDSM. My understanding of WP:BRD is that contested edits require consensus before being added. In any case, this isn't a matter of trying to keep relevant information off the encyclopedia. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

LBTQ-Section

The whole section on D/s in LBTQ is based on merely one source. It can be doubted that e.g. intergay D/s is supposed to work differently than heterosexual D/s. That might sure count for most if not all TBTQ D/s. The claims postulated could on the other hand be valid for a lot of heterosexual D/s constellations. I suggest the complete remake and/or deletion of the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.118.53 (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• BDSM role play.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)