Talk:Ekiben (sexual act)

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image

@Just Step Sideways: doing my due diligence I’m following WP:BRD and taking this to the talk page. I think the general assumption is that a subpar illustration is better than no illustration, not the other way around. I am under no illusions that my drawing is particularly good, but there were literally no free images of this subject on Commons and the article was illustrated by a copyright violation that was going to be deleted anyway. I didn’t want to leave a void where the original illustration was so after significant consideration I tried my best to provide at least a passable replacement. In any case I think it’s been established you vehemently despise my work so I don’t think you’re the best judge of quality on this particular matter. Finally I think repeatedly coming to an obscure article specifically to have a dispute with me is poor form after we agreed it was in our mutual interest to go our separate ways on Commons. Answer in a civil manner is appreciated. Dronebogus (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your image when I saw on Commons that it was in use here. You choosing to characterize that as repeatedly coming to an obscure article specifically to have a dispute with me is therefore not entirely accurate. In fact, if you had manually re-added it I wouldn't have noticed as I was not watching the article, but you chose to use the undo function, which I am sure you must know would generate a notification, but whatever, that isn't the point anyway.

The point is the image is of very low quality and I don't think the article is improved by it. Body proportions are not realistic and it looks like a cartoon rather than an illustration. Rather than "leaving a void" by its abscence I do believe that using such a poor quality image to illustrate what is only one sentence of this brief article (which already has a perfectly good, non-cartoonish image) is worse than not having it at all. WP:TNT is generally used in reference to articles but I think it is arguable that it can apply to poor-quality images as well.

This isn't about you, or any dispute we had on Commons, it is about a poor-quality images being used here, on Wikipedia.

That being said I'd welcome a WP:3O on the matter, as I will concede that it is unlikely we will be able to come to an agreement on our own. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't see the "reverse" version mentioned, much less described, in the cited source, per WP:V I've removed the "reverse" part from the article (along with some other OR). So it doesn't seem that an illustration is needed at all, unless and until someone re-adds the content with a reliable source. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess that’s settled then Dronebogus (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]