Talk:Prince Albert (genital piercing)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Image placement

message: 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)
thread_title: Hatnote

message: 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)
thread_title:  Google 

message: 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)
replies: text: Article has been updated (including better images). — 78.149.199.229 (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  main page image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggest at least a couple more pictures of normal PA piercings. 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hooooly guacamole 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image is not a Prince Albert