Jump to content

Talk:Issues in social nudity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Issues in social nudity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tone and verifiability

[edit]

I'm not going to tag the article because I suspect it will just lead to a war, but this article (a) has a moderate "essay-like tone" problem, and (b) seems to contain a great deal of naked WP:OR. EEng 05:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very diplomatic way of putting it. I have contributed to adding references- so I am entitled to an opinion. Perhaps we should just WP:BRD- Zap unsupported paragraphs or WP:OR and wait for the consequences.@Nazock: may have an opinion.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Six months and no movement so I have slapped on some cn s, and taken out the unreferenced passages. I suggest an author should read back numbers of BN- and find a reference before adding a fact. Wikipedia is not a blog site- it doesn't contain original research no matter how well meaning. --ClemRutter (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nine months and little has changed- perhaps it is time for WP:BOLD? ClemRutter (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ClemRutter: As no objections have been raised in all this time I do not see any problem with you removing more of the WP:OR content. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I gave it six months more- and have excised the unsourced material- if you have the refs- please edit this further. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Zezen (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Issues in social nudity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please delete the silly inappropriate photo.49.178.184.162 (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This image has been nominated for deletion in 2010, 2012, and twice by the same anonymous user in March 2021. Each time the consensus was to keep it. You are welcome to nominate it for deletion yet again, but don't expect a different result. Alternatively, you could discuss here why you think it is inappropriate for this page. —VeryRarelyStable 10:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not delete this article?

[edit]

The "issues" in social nudity are covered by the main articles on Nudity and Naturism, or should be. I would say merge, except there is little here to salvage. WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, feel free to be bold and do the merger to the main Nudity article (although there is a lot of duplication here). GnocchiFan (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The target of the merge into is Naturism, not Nudity. Nudity is currently being reviewed for GA status. WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just spotted this, and I'm not sure whether the proposal is deletion (as it says here) or merger (as it says at the top of the article). Personally I would agree with either. The article has a small amount of content that is suitable for merging, but I do not think there is enough that deletion would be a problem. The article has been around for many years with very little improvement. In fact, its title encourages the addition of content about commentators who are not particularly WP:NOTEWORTHY (Mark Storey, Stéphane Deschênes, Vincent Bethell, Daniel Johnson, Glenn Smith, Michael King). Even if no major change happens, we should probably prune a lot of it. -- Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A redirect preserves notable content, but if little survives notability, it may be equivalent to deletion. WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Most of this article doesn't even address issues, and everything else is covered by Nudity especially, and to a lesser degree Nude recreation, History of nudity, and so on. There are a lot of articles on human nudity, and this one is comparatively pretty poor and could be split across them or have any relevant info be relocated. Micahtchi (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing tag

[edit]

Reading the talk page of Naturism, which I should have done before, I see that this article was created to reduce the size of that article, so merging it back is not a reasonable option.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Issues_in_social_nudity&oldid=1260209503"