Talk:Promiscuity

message: Would it be acceptable to create a male promiscuity page, similar to the female promiscuity page? Sxologist (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no reason to do that. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:CFORK. Crossroads -talk- 15:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

text: My feelings on the matter are seen at Talk:Female promiscuity/Archive 1#Shouldn't this be merged? (round two). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male promiscuity page 

message: I don't think it's good to have a "Humans" section and then a "Male promiscuity" and "Female promiscuity" section, which are also about humans. Any content about non-human animals can simply be titled "Other animals" like we do with medical articles per WP:MEDSECTIONS. Even beyond medical articles, non-human animals simply get a section lower in the article with the presumption that the rest of the article before that point is about humans. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, perhaps it just needs to be 'motivations' or something of the like, because that's what most of the section actually covers. Then cross-cultural/georgraphic differences could be it's own section lower down. Sxologist (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: 1. I have removed and tagged a sample of these. 
2. We need is a simple graph, based on RS statistics, with caveats. 
Something like this one
https://contexts.org/blog/an-unequal-distribution-of-partners-gays-versus-straights/
(non-RS).
Zezen (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Goodreau and Golden, I don't see that the quote in your edit summary necessarily contradicts the quote in the text of the article. The Tripod source could perhaps be replaced with the General Social Survey directly. Crossroads -talk- 03:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't get that tag either. It's also kind of finicky having the gay men section in the middle of there, but I think it would be weird to split it into it's own section and perhaps a little too stereotyping. Sxologist (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of non-RS and failed VER at homosexual vs heterosexual 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Homosexual promiscuity. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 18#Homosexual promiscuity until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Bangalamania (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Homosexual promiscuity" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Why do we have an extensive, unsourced "Famous examples" section in "Male promiscuity"? It has been tagged for almost three years, and has only one source (and that one does not appear to support the actual labelling of the various people). This section appears to be nothing but an unsourced coatrack. Note that there is no equivalent "Famous examples" section under "Female promiscuity".
Unless someone provides references for calling all of these men famous examples of promiscuity I'm going to remove the entire section. I'm not going to look for sources myself because I don't really think this appropriate content. Meters (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Two weeks with no objections, so removed  Meters (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: And removed again.  "because it was very cool" does not trump WP:V Meters (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with the above. Crossroads -talk- 05:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: And a couple more times. A personal attack in the edit summary and "this is my favorite wikipedia page" are  not very convincing arguments. If the IP has a valid point to make, let's hear it. Meters (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Famous examples" section