Talk:Prince Albert (genital piercing): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Body Modification}}. Tag: |
|||
| (109 intermediate revisions by 48 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{Censor}} |
{{Censor}} |
||
{{not a forum|technical issues/general comments}} |
|||
{{Archive box|[[/Image discussions|Image discussions]] <br> |
|||
{{Notice|Much discussion has gone into the use and type of images in this article, as well as their placement. Moving, resizing or deleting the images in this article is considered vandalism and all such changes will be reverted. Please see the archived image discussions for details.}} |
|||
[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]]}}. |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| |
|||
{{WikiProject Body Modification|importance=mid}} |
|||
}} |
|||
==Image placement== |
|||
In case you missed the notice above, much discussion has gone into the use and type of images in this article, as well as their placement. Moving, resizing or deleting the images in this article is considered [[WP:VAND|vandalism]] and all such changes will be reverted. Please see the archived discussions for details: [[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] [[/Archive 2|Archive 2]]. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] ([[User talk:Jokestress|talk]]) 01:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THEY BE PLACED ELSEWHERE OUR UNDER AGE VERIFICATION! MY 12 YEAR OLD SON LED ME TO THIS ARTICLE THINKING IT WAS FUNNY. HE THEN TOOK ME ON A TOUR OF SEVERAL OTHER GOODIES THAT ARE OF NAKED PEOPLE. THIS IS PORN! THERE NEEDS TO BE USER LOGIN AND PASSWORD INFORMATION AND PROOF OF AGE. NOT SAYING THE INFORMATION IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR ALL AGES - BUT UNDER 18 THERE NEEDS TO BE A RESTRICTION. DOES NOBODY MONITOR THE TYPES OF PICS AND THINGS ARE POSTED? AS A PARENT IT GREATLY ANGERS AND CONCERNS ME.WIKIPEDIA IS SUCH A WONDERFUL TOOL FOR LEARNING. BUT IF IT CAN'T BE CONTROLLED AND REGULATED THEN IT NEEDS TO BE SHUT DOWN. AS OF NOW MY SON'S COMPUTER HAS WIKIPEDIA BLOCKED AND i PLAN TO TALK TO THE SCHOOL BOARD ABOUT THIS AS WELL. |
|||
{{Notice|Much discussion has gone into the use and type of images in this article, as well as their placement. Moving, resizing or deleting the images in this article is considered vandalism and all such changes will be reverted. Please see the archived Image discussions for details.}} |
|||
ALL THAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE SAID TO THE CHILD IS THAT A P.A. IS A PIERCING OF THE PENIS - THE END. THE PARENT CAN DECIDE IF THEY WISH TO ELABORATE TO THE CHILD. |
|||
==Vote for picture placement== |
|||
And you my friend have way too much time on your hands! <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/79.77.76.157|79.77.76.157]] ([[User talk:79.77.76.157#top|talk]]) 20:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
This is a vote to see if the picture should be moveddown the page or not. Vote Move down or Dont move |
|||
:Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTCENSORED|not censored]]. That means relevant images will be included and we do not hide them. Period. If you don't want your child to see images of a pierced penis on an article about pierced penises, you should be monitoring their Internet usage more closely. Babysitting your kid is not our job. [[User talk:Icy Tiger's Blood|<span style="font-family:COLONNA MT; color:blue;">ICY</span><span style="font-family:COLONNA MT; color:orange;">TIGER'S</span><span style="font-family:COLONNA MT; color:red;">BLOOD</span>]] 19:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
==Hatnote== |
|||
*'''Move Down''' [[User:Numpty454|Numpty454]] ([[User talk:Numpty454|talk]]) 19:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Because this is frequently the top search engine result for "Prince Albert," even though the primary here is [[Prince Albert]], I believe [[WP:HATNOTE]] allows for a notation to otheruses. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] ([[User talk:Jokestress|talk]]) 22:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Move Down''' Due to a high risk of people not knowing what the article is about, and it's the top hit on Google for "Prince Albert". There's a chance of a child doing a report on him and searching Google for it, clicking the first link they see, and getting a monitor full of penis. In fact, it's already happened to someone's 9 year old daughter. [[Special:Contributions/68.54.174.43|68.54.174.43]] ([[User talk:68.54.174.43|talk]]) 18:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Move down'''. No outside party is forcing this; it's not censorship by any sane definition of the word—just an editorial decision to make the article more valuable to those unfamiliar with the term. Would also favor creating a line drawing, like the drawings used on many sexually-explicit lead blocks. To re-emphasize: the picture should stay in the article, but the lead block should have a drawing to give readers proper context. Not everyone knows what a "Prince Albert" is. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 04:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Don't Move''' I think the photo should stay (where it is). If people get offended by a photograph of anatomy, just as many people are likely to be offended by a drawing. It's not like the photo is being used in a sexual manner nor is the subject being used sexually. Parents and schools can control content. I would like to think that if a student was looking up the person and bumbled into this article, proper filters set up by parents and schools would take care of any issues. Concerned parents might also want to contemplate using books/encyclopedias if objectionable content is feared. Additionally, drawings may be subject to copyrights, causing additional complications. [[Special:Contributions/75.60.196.25|75.60.196.25]] ([[User talk:75.60.196.25|talk]]) 04:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
**The first statement is manifestly untrue. Drawings are considered less offensive. Much of your argument addresses a false premise. Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT|no censored for the protection of minors]], and that's not what anyone has proposed. We would change the image because we think it improves the article, not because we want to be wikinannies. As for the last point: we would make our own drawing. Drawings are no more likely to be subject to copyright than photos. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 00:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Google == |
|||
Okay, this is not the correct way to go about this. Votes are not a substitution for discussion. '''<font face="times new roman">[[User:hmwith|<span style="background:#999;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">hmwith</span>]][[User talk:hmwith|<span style="background:#666;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">τ</span>]]</font>''' 05:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Move down and add diagram.''' A diagram would improve the article and avoid inappropriate exposure (so to speak). How many encyclopedias are gratuitously not safe for work? Because this article is. Also see my rationale below. The voting approach may or may not be helpful--but in any case discussion HAS taken place on this page. [[User:Jason L. Gohlke|gohlkus]] ([[User talk:Jason L. Gohlke|talk]]) 19:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Coment''' I think [[user:Cool Hand Luke]] has put the argument across perfectly. Votes not the rigt way to go about? I thought wikipedia was a decomcracy where consensus was used e.g. [[wp:RFA]]. Also even if it isn't sometimes you have to bend policy rules to achieve innovation. Otherwise, Wikipedia will be forever stuck in a state of static equilibrium. :) [[User:Numpty454|Numpty454]] ([[User talk:Numpty454|talk]]) 09:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Still the top search result on Google for Prince Albert, people are using this as an example of "Wiki-porn"... How notable or wide-spread is this type of piercing? If it isn't, maybe you could somehow merge it with other genital piercings? [[User:Ikmxx|Ikmxx]] ([[User talk:Ikmxx|talk]]) 04:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Picture placement == |
|||
Given that the current top Google hit for "prince albert" is this article, it might be a good idea to move the photo down a bit; anyone hitting "I Feel Lucky" might be a bit surprised. For that matter, I followed a Google link after specifically searching for information on the piercing, and was still surprised by the photo. —[[User:Tregoweth|tregoweth]] (''[[User talk:Tregoweth|talk]]'') 00:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Nevermind... after researching it a bit, I think the article is just fine how it is, but how it ended up top is a different problem, it's due people linking to it more than the other one so it's nothing that can be fixed, more of a problem on Google's end... [[User:Ikmxx|Ikmxx]] ([[User talk:Ikmxx|talk]]) 05:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::There has been much discussion of this. Please refer to the upper portion of the page, and the archives. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] 16:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== main page image == |
|||
Y'know, this isn't censorship for the protection of minors. It's just what a respectable encyclopedia does. [[Penis]] does not open with a picture of an erect penis, and even once-controversial [[clitoris]] leads with a diagram. People are much more likely to know what they're getting in those articles than this one, so it's high time to fix this anachronism. It's posted upfront from the era when we were concerned about "censorship." I propose we use a diagram in the lead. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 20:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
The main page image on the article is laughably un-encyclopedic. It looks like the kind of unsolicited dick pic you'd get from a sketchy online hookup. It's blurry, dark, poorly framed and obviously taken by the subject himself. There are two other images in the article which are both better illustrations, so this image serves no purpose and should be removed. [[WP:CENSOR]] does not apply here, but [[WP:GRATUITOUS]] does. [[Special:Contributions/24.91.28.20|24.91.28.20]] ([[User talk:24.91.28.20|talk]]) 04:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:I think the photograph should stay. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] ([[User talk:Anchoress|talk]]) 02:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Article has been updated (including better images). — [[Special:Contributions/78.149.199.229|78.149.199.229]] ([[User talk:78.149.199.229|talk]]) 21:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::I do too. It's just that it shouldn't be at the top of the page. We should lead with a line drawing. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 07:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Suggest at least a couple more pictures of normal PA piercings. == |
|||
:::Meh. I said I think the photograph should stay. As in, '''''stay where it is'''''. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] ([[User talk:Anchoress|talk]]) 07:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
The discussions about images/illustrations is outrageous. Parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on the internet. Wikipedia is used for information regarding specific subjects. If a person can't find the information they require they will need a new source. |
|||
::::Any reason? Most comparable articles lead with a drawing, and viewers of articles like [[Penis]] are much more likely to know what they're looking up. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 07:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I'm trying to find more pictures of "normal" PA piercings. I have questions regarding what a blowout might look like. Surprisingly enough it is hard to find pictures of this. You find more of the "worst case scenario" pictures or outrageously sized piercings. On my new piercing I am concerned I may be getting a blowout, but what I have looks no where near the only pictures I find. But I am having a hard time finding pictures of a normal piercing (not outrageously sized!) with high enough definition to see skin close up. |
|||
:::::I think drawings are inferior, and the widespread use of them stupid. Just because a bunch of other articles are using them in the lead, doesn't mean drawings are better. IMO photos are better and all articles should lead with them. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] ([[User talk:Anchoress|talk]]) 07:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I thought I might be able to find standard pictures here but instead I see people complaining that they accidentally clicked on the page. Here's an idea. Don't click on the "Prince Albert (GENITAL PIERCING)" link if you don't want to see it! <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:JTH1124|JTH1124]] ([[User talk:JTH1124#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JTH1124|contribs]]) 21:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::::::Since everyone is chiming in with opinions, here's my $0.02: I think the photo currently leading the article is, frankly, very unattractive. If there must be a photo there, perhaps it can be a good photograph. Well-lit for starters. And as for composition, a photo withou hand in the background holding the erection forth as if to say "hey, world, look at my jones!" And, since I'm being perfectly frank, the white bumps on the underside of the shaft are also a distraction. So, if the photo has to be there, can we have another?[[User:Dpmath|Dpmath]] ([[User talk:Dpmath|talk]]) 01:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== External links modified == |
|||
:::::::Hi Dpmath: When it comes to better quality pics, it's pretty much up to editors who want better pics to procure them. Because of the [[GNU]] licensing we use with WikiMedia, any pics submitted must be completely free for any use. You can try to get or make one yourself, or you can request a better pic at requested images. But be warned that there are lots of WP articles that don't have any pics at all, and they will probably take precedence. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] ([[User talk:Anchoress|talk]]) 05:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|||
::::::'''Move the picture down, and replace it with an illustration.''' Cool Hand Luke made an extremely cogent argument above (on 23 November 2007) with which I agree totally. Some of the more individual elements of the photo which distract Dpmath in the comment above would be minimized with the use of a diagram. This article is linked to from articles about British royalty, for example, and it's a bit of a shock, IMO, when idly navigated to. I think the current picture is startling without any warning, and a diagram would improve the article. [[User:Jason L. Gohlke|gohlkus]] ([[User talk:Jason L. Gohlke|talk]]) 07:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I have just modified one external link on [[Prince Albert (genital piercing)]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/813132462|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|||
:::::::'''I agree with Gohlke and Cool Hand Luke.''' Frankly I find the photo tasteless and unnecessary. A diagram or drawing would be more informative and not distract visitors with extraneous information. The photo should be embeded in a context in which its purpose is clearer---as in comparative photos showing the placement of the piercing in circumcised and uncircumcised men, or when the penis is soft and when it is erect. I do not believe that my preference for an illustration here stems from prudishness or censorship. I have a P.A. and I like people to see it. I just don't assume that this is the forum for it to be shown, but rather to inform people about the piercing---which an illustration does most clearly, in the first instance.[[User:Dpmath|Dpmath]] ([[User talk:Dpmath|talk]]) 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305184437/http://www.safepiercing.org/bodyAftercare.html to http://www.safepiercing.org/bodyAftercare.html |
|||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|||
== Prince Albert == |
|||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|||
I can't possibly believe what is said here about people using this in victorian England, including Prince Albert. |
|||
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 23:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
The article about [[Doug Malloy]] mentions a pamphlet of his that spread many myths about many piercings, and I bet this is such a case... |
|||
== Hooooly guacamole == |
|||
Of course the myth should be mentioned, but not told as a probable fact. I can't possibly believe this without seeing a XVIII century picture... (if they were kinky enough to do it then, they would photograph it too...) -- [[User:Nwerneck|NIC1138]] 02:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Why not include some pictures of more mild PA piercings? Mother of God, this is the most cringeworthy article on wikipedia. To pass these extreme versions of piercings as the norm is ignorance at best, deception at worst... Please include the more mild/common versions of the piercings in the picture that are first seen rather than the butchery of what has become. |
|||
::Nevertheless, it's a very, very commonly told story about the origins of this piercing. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] 15:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Thank you, please understand that I have good intentions and that I just want readers to be aware of all of the differences that make us human. I love us all and I think that we need to be appropriate and impartial to what constitutes a PA piercing. |
|||
This is all I will be saying on the subject. Judging from previous replies from the mods, they do not care about these sort of concerns. But, I will vocalize my own concern as one of perhaps hundreds that disagree with the choice of pictures being used. Furthermore I believe that I have a very reasonable complaint that is common in anyone who views this page. Again, I will not be replying nor will I read any replies to this comment. What I said is fact, and that is objectively true. |
|||
[[User:Fefil14|Fefil14]] ([[User talk:Fefil14|talk]]) 08:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Image is not a Prince Albert == |
|||
:::In light of the doubts already raised by the fake histories circulating about the P.A., and information regarding the origins of the P.A. elsewhere on Wikipedia traced to published sources, I have edited the history section to reflect the role of Doug Malloy in creating the urban legends around its putative namesake. [[User:Dpmath|Dpmath]] ([[User talk:Dpmath|talk]]) 00:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
The picture captioned ''Prince Albert piercing plus scrotal ladder of BCRs, pubic piercing and tattoo'' does not show a penis with a Prince Albert piercing. Come to think of it, it doesn't show either a scrotal ladder or a tattoo. It does show an apparently erect penis, with helpful signposts to the various penile parts; but a piercing, no. |
|||
==Removed== |
|||
"In the 19th century it was commonly referred to as a dressing ring, and the question 'Which side is sir dressed on?" used by tailors and hospital staff amongst others refers to the arrangement of the anatomy in this area; the ring was used to hold the penis at one side of the pantaloons' top. " |
|||
I sometimes wonder if editors mischievously substitute pictures which are deliberately wrong, to prove that no-one actually reads these articles; or, if readers do, they do not possess sufficient critical faculties to question what they see. |
|||
The expression applies to the natural proclivity of "the anatomy in this area". We would need a reliable reference to imply otherwise. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 12:37 [[4 October]] [[2007]] (GMT). |
|||
[[User:Nuttyskin|Nuttyskin]] ([[User talk:Nuttyskin|talk]]) 12:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Are the pics really necessary? == |
|||
Okay, I know Wikipedia does not censor itself, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Being a male, those pictures are extremely traumatizing to look at. Can't we just have links to the pictures, with a caption, i.e. WARNING: EXTREMELY SHOCKING CONTENT or something? Maybe I'm overreacting, but I quite literally almost passed out after seeing those. Images like those are useful only for shock value, and serve no educational purpose. [[User:MinnesotanConfederacy|Josh]] ([[User talk:MinnesotanConfederacy|talk]]) 07:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, necessary. No, no presentation other than the current one. See [[WP:CENSOR]]. '''[[User:hmwith|<span style="background:#999;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">нмŵוτн</span>]][[User talk:hmwith|<span style="background:#666;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">τ</span>]]''' 13:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Why are they necessary? [[User:MinnesotanConfederacy|Josh]] ([[User talk:MinnesotanConfederacy|talk]]) 21:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I forgot to also tell you to check out [[Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles]]. |
|||
:::So remove them and put up less graphic diagrams. Sexual education teachers don't teach via videos or pictures of people having sex. The sole purpose of this article seems to shock children and teenagers who come across it unknowingly. |
|||
Its inclusion in the articles is important because it illustrates the Prince Albert Piercing. Wikipedia is an illustrated encyclopedia. That's like asking why there's a big picture of a tongue in the [[tongue]] article or a nose piercing in the [[nose piercing]] article. If you don't like the image, stop coming to this article. It's just for informative and educational purposes. Thanks, '''[[User:hmwith|<span style="background:#999;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">нмŵוτн</span>]][[User talk:hmwith|<span style="background:#666;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">τ</span>]]''' 21:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I think they add to the reader's understanding of the topic, which is the standard for inclusion of visual illustrations. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] ([[User talk:Anchoress|talk]]) 05:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Firstly, we got the point of the piercing in the first picture. Whoever wrote this article obviously felt the need to add numerous more pictures unnecessarily. Secondly, a less graphic diagram would be a better alternative considering the demographic that visit this website. And no, it's not peoples fault for visiting this article that they're traumatised by pictures of penises with holes through them. |
|||
== Ugh == |
|||
Please move the pictures DOWN the page. At least then the reader can read about what it is first and then scroll down to see it. I am a 14 year old boy, and I was thoroughly disgusted when I opened this page. I immediately hit the "discussion" tab once I saw one glimpse of that picture. [[Special:Contributions/68.54.174.43|68.54.174.43]] ([[User talk:68.54.174.43|talk]]) 23:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Pictures == |
|||
What do people expect to see when they click on "prince Albert piercing" on an uncensored encyclopedia? If you don't want to see a penis with a hole in it, don't search for articles on genital piercing. Also, I find it hard to believe that the "14 year old boy" who wrote above is really 14. 14 year olds don't refer to themselves as "boys" and a penis pic is the least of your problems when you're a freshman.[[Special:Contributions/72.78.159.73|72.78.159.73]] ([[User talk:72.78.159.73|talk]]) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 20:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::Listen buddy, I'll call myself whatever I want thank you very much. And how the hell was I supposed to know I'd get a picture of a penis piercing? [[Special:Contributions/68.54.174.43|68.54.174.43]] ([[User talk:68.54.174.43|talk]]) 03:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
And another thing, "don't search for articles on genital piercing.". I didn't know what a Prince Albert piercing was. And a "freshman"? Um, I'm in 8th grade for your information. [[Special:Contributions/68.54.174.43|68.54.174.43]] ([[User talk:68.54.174.43|talk]]) 03:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: There's an old saying "If you've seen one dick, you've seen them all." Looking at a genital in a non-sexual context is no different than looking at an earlobe, tongue, or nose. I would like to think that most people are grounded in the basics of certain procedures, such as the Prince Albert and would have some kind of base expectation as to what piercing goes where. Life is not butterflies and rainbows. If you don't want to be grossed out, then perhaps it's best not to look? [[Special:Contributions/75.60.196.25|75.60.196.25]] ([[User talk:75.60.196.25|talk]]) 04:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Picture placement == |
|||
I would just re-iterate existing suggestions to move the photo further down the page. My 9 year-old daughter stumbled across this article whilst researching Prince Albert for her school homework - it was the top hit on Google. [[User:FrumpyMum|FrumpyMum]] ([[User talk:FrumpyMum|talk]]) 18:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:He's right, it is. So lets just have a vote or something on whether or not to move the picture down the page and have a warning at the top, ok people? [[Special:Contributions/68.54.174.43|68.54.174.43]] ([[User talk:68.54.174.43|talk]]) 16:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm sorry you were distressed, of course, but I think your displeasure may be misplaced. You should probably have a talk with your daughter's teacher about the wisdom of sending nine-year-olds home to google "Prince Albert", and you might want to reconsider whether you want your daughter using an uncensored adult encyclopedia for her homework. Wikipedia simply isn't composed for children, and contains lots of material that some parents don't want their kids stumbling on. [[User:Elmo iscariot|Elmo iscariot]] ([[User talk:Elmo iscariot|talk]]) 13:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I would like to agree with [[User:Elmo iscariot|Elmo iscariot]]. Such issues can easily be averted with parental guidance when it comes to research on the internet. There are these things called books, encyclopedias, at schools and in libraries. They are remarkable resources for children if you are concerned with them finding material that may be considered unsuitable. Turning a child loose on the internet without supervision is a more distressing issue than any anatomical photograph.[[Special:Contributions/75.60.196.25|75.60.196.25]] ([[User talk:75.60.196.25|talk]]) 04:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Pictures are not necessary == |
|||
Honestly, that's not what I wanted to see when I viewed this article. Atleast I was hoping for a drawn diagram or something a lot less graphic. A warning or something would've been a lot nicer. |
|||
Latest revision as of 14:56, 8 September 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prince Albert (genital piercing) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2 |
 | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about technical issues/general comments. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about technical issues/general comments at the Reference desk. |
 | Much discussion has gone into the use and type of images in this article, as well as their placement. Moving, resizing or deleting the images in this article is considered vandalism and all such changes will be reverted. Please see the archived image discussions for details. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Image placement
[edit]In case you missed the notice above, much discussion has gone into the use and type of images in this article, as well as their placement. Moving, resizing or deleting the images in this article is considered vandalism and all such changes will be reverted. Please see the archived discussions for details: Archive 1 Archive 2. Jokestress (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THEY BE PLACED ELSEWHERE OUR UNDER AGE VERIFICATION! MY 12 YEAR OLD SON LED ME TO THIS ARTICLE THINKING IT WAS FUNNY. HE THEN TOOK ME ON A TOUR OF SEVERAL OTHER GOODIES THAT ARE OF NAKED PEOPLE. THIS IS PORN! THERE NEEDS TO BE USER LOGIN AND PASSWORD INFORMATION AND PROOF OF AGE. NOT SAYING THE INFORMATION IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR ALL AGES - BUT UNDER 18 THERE NEEDS TO BE A RESTRICTION. DOES NOBODY MONITOR THE TYPES OF PICS AND THINGS ARE POSTED? AS A PARENT IT GREATLY ANGERS AND CONCERNS ME.WIKIPEDIA IS SUCH A WONDERFUL TOOL FOR LEARNING. BUT IF IT CAN'T BE CONTROLLED AND REGULATED THEN IT NEEDS TO BE SHUT DOWN. AS OF NOW MY SON'S COMPUTER HAS WIKIPEDIA BLOCKED AND i PLAN TO TALK TO THE SCHOOL BOARD ABOUT THIS AS WELL.
ALL THAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE SAID TO THE CHILD IS THAT A P.A. IS A PIERCING OF THE PENIS - THE END. THE PARENT CAN DECIDE IF THEY WISH TO ELABORATE TO THE CHILD.
And you my friend have way too much time on your hands! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.76.157 (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not censored. That means relevant images will be included and we do not hide them. Period. If you don't want your child to see images of a pierced penis on an article about pierced penises, you should be monitoring their Internet usage more closely. Babysitting your kid is not our job. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 19:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hatnote
[edit]Because this is frequently the top search engine result for "Prince Albert," even though the primary here is Prince Albert, I believe WP:HATNOTE allows for a notation to otheruses. Jokestress (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Still the top search result on Google for Prince Albert, people are using this as an example of "Wiki-porn"... How notable or wide-spread is this type of piercing? If it isn't, maybe you could somehow merge it with other genital piercings? Ikmxx (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Nevermind... after researching it a bit, I think the article is just fine how it is, but how it ended up top is a different problem, it's due people linking to it more than the other one so it's nothing that can be fixed, more of a problem on Google's end... Ikmxx (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
main page image
[edit]The main page image on the article is laughably un-encyclopedic. It looks like the kind of unsolicited dick pic you'd get from a sketchy online hookup. It's blurry, dark, poorly framed and obviously taken by the subject himself. There are two other images in the article which are both better illustrations, so this image serves no purpose and should be removed. WP:CENSOR does not apply here, but WP:GRATUITOUS does. 24.91.28.20 (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Article has been updated (including better images). — 78.149.199.229 (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Suggest at least a couple more pictures of normal PA piercings.
[edit]The discussions about images/illustrations is outrageous. Parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on the internet. Wikipedia is used for information regarding specific subjects. If a person can't find the information they require they will need a new source.
I'm trying to find more pictures of "normal" PA piercings. I have questions regarding what a blowout might look like. Surprisingly enough it is hard to find pictures of this. You find more of the "worst case scenario" pictures or outrageously sized piercings. On my new piercing I am concerned I may be getting a blowout, but what I have looks no where near the only pictures I find. But I am having a hard time finding pictures of a normal piercing (not outrageously sized!) with high enough definition to see skin close up.
I thought I might be able to find standard pictures here but instead I see people complaining that they accidentally clicked on the page. Here's an idea. Don't click on the "Prince Albert (GENITAL PIERCING)" link if you don't want to see it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTH1124 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Prince Albert (genital piercing). 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305184437/http://www.safepiercing.org/bodyAftercare.html to http://www.safepiercing.org/bodyAftercare.html
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) 23:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hooooly guacamole
[edit]Why not include some pictures of more mild PA piercings? Mother of God, this is the most cringeworthy article on wikipedia. To pass these extreme versions of piercings as the norm is ignorance at best, deception at worst... Please include the more mild/common versions of the piercings in the picture that are first seen rather than the butchery of what has become. Thank you, please understand that I have good intentions and that I just want readers to be aware of all of the differences that make us human. I love us all and I think that we need to be appropriate and impartial to what constitutes a PA piercing. This is all I will be saying on the subject. Judging from previous replies from the mods, they do not care about these sort of concerns. But, I will vocalize my own concern as one of perhaps hundreds that disagree with the choice of pictures being used. Furthermore I believe that I have a very reasonable complaint that is common in anyone who views this page. Again, I will not be replying nor will I read any replies to this comment. What I said is fact, and that is objectively true. Fefil14 (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Image is not a Prince Albert
[edit]The picture captioned Prince Albert piercing plus scrotal ladder of BCRs, pubic piercing and tattoo does not show a penis with a Prince Albert piercing. Come to think of it, it doesn't show either a scrotal ladder or a tattoo. It does show an apparently erect penis, with helpful signposts to the various penile parts; but a piercing, no.
I sometimes wonder if editors mischievously substitute pictures which are deliberately wrong, to prove that no-one actually reads these articles; or, if readers do, they do not possess sufficient critical faculties to question what they see. Nuttyskin (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)