Talk:Ejaculation/Archive 2

message: The diagram at the top of the page claims to show the path semen takes during ejaculation. But in fact it doesn't. It appears that semen follows a green circle around the prostate. Can we fix this please? --151.203.14.187 07:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  image 

message: The talk page has become fairly long and the conversations have also gotten confusingly out-of-order.  At the same time, it doesn't seem there are active issues under discussion now that there is consensus to compromise on linking to a free photo rather than either exclusing it or showing it in-line.
Therefore, I'm archiving all the old-talk.  If I've mis-judged, please copy back any pertinent discussion which you wish to continue.
The section headings in Archive 1 are:  1: Ejaculation Velocity 2: Off Topic: Signing Signatures  3: Actual image of ejaculation?  4: Requires Cleanup 5: Use of picture 6: Protected?  6.1: Further image discussion 7: Discussion from WP:AN  8: New 11: An alternative image  11.1: Another possible alternative image 12: Moving away from the pic for a moment.
- Johntex\talk 17:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive 1

message: The page doesn't have any information about the after effects of ejacualtion, the inability experienced by most men to get an erection again, or the lowered libedo etc. I have no scientific knowledge on these (actually why I visted the page) so it would be great if someone could add them, thanks. --Aceizace 01:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article you're probably looking for is refractory period, which does get a link from here.  It has some of the info you want, though it could use more. LWizard @ 01:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: True, if a person is not used to ejaculating regularly and often, then they are not likely going to be able to "all the sudden" perform like a stud during one spontaneous night of bliss. No wonder we are resorting to drugs so much for erectile disfunction. If you haven't practiced running, I wouldn't suggest you enter a marathon either. Fact is, those who practice sex regularly are going to be better prepared to perform when opportunity knocks.  It's not rocket science. Like it or not, you need to masturbate regularly (unless you have a paid concubine which most of us don't have) and practice taking your time. Frankly, intercourse is not convenient and takes a lot of energy so most people must depend on masturbation to ejaculate regularly and as often as they really need to. I only have time for intercourse a few times a week and just don't have the time for more.  I would be a walking erection if I didn't supplement it with masturbation.  In today's busy world, you just can't ejaculate as much as is healthy and as much as you need without the convenience of masturbation. --Trevor100a 15:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afterwards 

message: Preferably something that isn't personal vanity of one person that they used make themselves "internet famous".
It's an accurate and scientific depiction of the act of ejaculation and I feel that it should be included in the article. JSIN 07:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Find a better video representation 

message: This article contains a large amount of uncited information. As just one example, the statement that "Studies have shown that most men can only avoid ejaculation during active thrusting for five minutes or less." If there is no credible reference for this statement, it should be deleted from the page. --HarmonicFeather 07:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited information 

message: Why were my last edits to this page reverted? --HarmonicFeather 08:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: Wikipedia is not censored, obviously. But, I wonder if it IS necessary to have a video of someone having an ejaculation. It looked pornographic to me, and could possibly be removed or replaced? --SonicChao talk 20:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't any problem with having the video, but my concern is its prominence.  This is one of those silly Wikipedia things that gets public attention, so for that reason alone I think this should be treated with care.  Now, ejaculation is a simple enough concept, and I'm sure a good stillframe image is more than good enough to portray it.  The video, while not "necessary", is also useful.  However, I don't think the link needs to be at the very top of the page, or even necessarily in the encyclopedia entry.  What I'm going to do right now is, instead, link to :commons:Category:Ejaculation.  Anyone looking for additional media on this topic can find it easily.  Please note that I'm not trying to censor this material through obscurity; I just think that its current placement puts too much importance on it. ~ Booya Bazooka 22:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Booyabazooka, the first and last sentences of your statement above is the real issue here. The placement of the video in the article. I think that the video is important to the article because it demonstrates exactly what is described in the process of ejaculation that is written in the article. A still frame photograph can't do that. I agree that it shouldn't be at the very top of the article, but I disagree with removing a direct link to the video. In my opinion, the Commons ejaculation category link does seem to hide it in obscurity. I have moved the direct link to the video down into the article where the process of ejaculation is described in detail. I think that this is a good compromise. Infofreak 02:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems fine, but the formatting is still pretty ugly in my opinion.  I've never seen video embedded in a wiki article like this, so I have no style precedent.  Is there a floating video template?  Something that looks like this? ~ Booya Bazooka 03:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Booyabazooka, I don't know for sure, but I think that the format that you just posted above and is currently being used is the standard template for video media for all Wikipedia projects. I did some checking. This ejaculation video is also being used on two foreign language Wikipedia articles on Ejaculation - nl and cs - They both use the same format, just in a different language, and they are both embedded in the articles. Infofreak 04:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The templates in the two foreign-language articles you noted are not as intrusive as ours, as they're both located at the end of the article.  On English, we only have about 20 transclusions of template:video, so I would hardly call it standard.  I've created a new similar template, template:video float, let's give it a try? ~ Booya Bazooka 05:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure ! Give it a try, and by the way, sorry. I didn't know that there was that many different Video Templates. The one being used is very common. The video links in the foreign ejaculation articles are at the end, but it could be because they are shorter and do not contain as much detail as the English one. Anyway, give yours a try. Infofreak 06:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great Booyabazooka, I like it ! Infofreak 06:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ejaculation video, is it necessary? 

message: Why is the "Ejaculation" article only about male ejaculation?  The same term is used for both men and women.  Shouldn't this article either cover both sexes, or summarize both and link to two separate articles, "Male ejaculation" and "Female ejaculation"? Eric-Albert 00:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male and female ejaculation 

message: JSA says amongst other things that the current image is bad because it depicts masturbation. The video does not show masturbation; if I took a still from the video, would that suit? How about if I turned the video into an animated gif? The Wednesday Island 18:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reviewed the video, because until this point, I never felt it relevant to the topic. (It is linked and labeled in such a way that it does not present itself forward unless a user willingly clicks to view it). Having done so, I would say that a still from this would be much more reasonable and appropriate. However, an animated GIF would be redundant with a video of the same footage on the page, as well as still potentially offensive (or at least found distasteful) by what I would estimate to be a significant enough portion of the normal viewing public. -- Joseph S Atkinson 19:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One other thought 

message: As of this moment, Ejaculation sample.jpg is showing as all black to me. Deleted? Vandalized? -- jsa 14:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any evidence of that.  Please consider retracting your comment unless you're able to show this was the case. Proto::► 20:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image gone 

message: I moved the picture down a section so - without censoring anything - if someone happens to random page their way to the page, at least they won't see it unless they scroll down.  I wearily await the revert because I'm a big evil Nazi censor who possibly kills and eats babies, but remain hopeful. Proto::► 20:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I removed the template at the top of this page which claims the images on the article are necessary.  This is for several reasons:
#Pictures come and go.  It is not possible to say that at any moment in time all the images we have are necesary.  Some may be copyright violations, vandalism, etc.
#Even allowable pictures are a matter of editorial discretion and opinion
#The template may have been placed to attempt to curtail discussion on these images, which would be inappropriate
#The template is not needed, discussion is continuing just fine.
Johntex\talk 07:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments on "Ben's" talk page concerning the phrasing of this template. -- jsa 08:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've been working with Ben regarding that template.  It is in cooperation with the Sexology and Sexuality project, and as you can see from his history, is being added to a list of talk pages.  SInce the template is subst'd then changing int slightly is no problem.  It is intended to prevent a large number of anon and uninformed from filling the talk page with complaints just because they see something they don't expect.  I don't expect it will slow down any serious editor complaining about serious issues.  It has been used effectively on the breast article, and there is still active discussion there.  Atom 13:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page template

message: I have very strong suspicions about the reliability of reference no. 5.
"This nameless doc I know told me that..."
Can we have some more information about the dangerous of ejaculatory abstinence over long periods of time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tullie (talk • contribs) 02:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference no. 5 

message: The article seems to be only describing human male ejaculation, instead of ejaculation as a general biological function.  I dunno if a squirrel feels pleasure during ejaculation for example.  Klosterdev 03:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to be more encyclopedic.