Any chance of a bit more, well, community?
The community talk page is empty and hasn't been edited since November
I can't find any list of admins to talk to regarding general newbie questions and stuff
Come on, this could be so great a project if people pulled together a bit more.
>>>> P.S. Clicking the link above incorrectly displays that you're still on the Wipipedia website in the address bar, not Wikipedia - I guess this is because you are using frames to hide the lfhosting address - maybe you should make it so external links open automatically in a new window to avoid opening in a frame, or use "a href="whatever" target="_top"> to make it open ignoring the frame as a proper link.
alternately you might want to set up your website DNS to point directly to lfhosting instead of simply having a "frame" page on wipipedia.org that displays the real site, lfhosting in the frame: talk to your host if you don't know how to do this :)
Yeah, I know I'm clever. Thank me later. ;) :p --Mistress Selina Kyle 13:20, 24 December 2005 (GMT)
I'm all for this website, and I think it's a brilliant idea. I've written a few articles as starting points, and I hope people will take some time to expand on what I wrote. --ViciousLover 11:54 AM, 25 December 2005 (EMT)
Hi, I set the site up in March this year, I'm one of the crew that run the London Fetish Scene website and we though this would be an interesting way of creating a community resource. Most the content has been created by Tanos, Intersom, andm myself (most copied from wikipedia); because we have other calls on our time we tend to go though phases of enthusiasm for editing the site. I do need to do some work on the techi side of the site, I'll set up a new page on system so that people can report bugs etc. It is great to see that you have some enthusiasm for what we are doing. Balzac 22:11, 25 December 2005 (GMT)
I wanted to copy the image at Spanking bench for the spankign art wiki, but there is no indication on that page whether this is PD or has been released under a free license. Indeed several pages do not seem to ahve any indication of the copyright terms. Is this a GFDL wiki? I could write your copyright page (look at spanking art's copyright page which is largely my work) but only if I know if text posted here is under the GFDL or not (if not, I can't copy content from spanking art or wikipedia. Mercy60a 18:03, 10 May 2006 (BST)
- The entire site is covered by the GFDL (I eventually found where we say so, under 'About Wipipedia' [but I use a different template than the standard]). Individual items may have other copyright conditions and should say so if they are different. Personally, I'm not convinced that people think enough about copyright when using text or images from elsewhere but there's not a lot that can be done about that.
- If you are willing to, I think we could do with a decent copyright page. It wouldn't be a straight copy of the Spanking Art one, as this site is hosted in the UK but please feel free to have a go.
- --Interesdom 08:32, 11 May 2006 (BST)
- Thanks. I was used to wikipedia, where every image has an explicit license statement, and any image uploaded without one is promptly deleted. I think you might want to add an explicit "Content on this site is release under the GFDL" to your footer -- there is pleanty of room. I don't know UK copyright law as well as I do US, but I can give at least a general overview. Mercy60a 15:44, 11 May 2006 (BST)
Should we have a category for clothing? Most cloting articles here could go under fetish, but not all fetish articles are clothing. --Taxwoman 23:17, 28 June 2006 (BST)
- Personally, I'm not convinced, though I don't feel strongly either way. Surely, all items of clothing here should be fetish, or why are they here and isn't most fetish about clothing? <ducks head> ;-) --Interesdom 10:33, 29 June 2006 (BST)
- I think it is something we should hold in reserve, the fetish category is not so big as to be difficult to navigate when it starts to become unwieldy is the time to add a new category (IHMO). I do think it is about time we had a look at all of the categories and come to a conclusion if any should be merged or deleted, for instance SM is very small and maybe should be merged with BDSM. I am sure there are others. When I set the original cetegories up we only had a hundred or so articles, we now have nearly 1000. An overhaul might be in order. Balzac 11:18, 29 June 2006 (BST)
- Given that this is a Fetish/BDSM encyclopedia, it would seem to make sense to have at least 'Fetish' along with the commonly-accepted breakdown of BDSM: Bondage/Discipline (probably best broken into two categories of 'Bondage' and 'Discipline' [which could be a renamed Punishment]), 'Dominance and submission' (which could remain as 'D/s'), 'Sadomasochism' (which could remain as 'SM' and should have many more articles assigned to it). Some of those may be small for now but I find it hard to justify not having them as a minimum. On the other hand, given that we have the breakdown of BDSM, do we really need it as a category? The main messy area is currently Other Topics. --Interesdom 13:35, 29 June 2006 (BST)
- Good point, BDSM should then perhaps become the top level category and a catch all for articles that don't fall into one of the subdivisions. Balzac 16:44, 29 June 2006 (BST)
I don't think "discipline" and "punishment" are synonymous.--Taxwoman 14:54, 1 July 2006 (BST)
- I agree but wonder how much practical overlap there is in articles adressing the two? I always struggle to work out the two and would like to see an article/section (by you? :) ) on the differences and similarities. Certainly, some of what is under the current Punishment is more to do with discipline. --Interesdom 19:31, 3 July 2006 (BST)
I like Wipipedia and my aim is to gradually contribute some content about authors, books, films and history of alternative sexualities. OK? Is there room for this? Any suggestions or guidelines? Andronikos Komnenos 23:02, 1 July 2006 (BST)
- This sounds good to me, especially if it is original content. --Interesdom 19:32, 3 July 2006 (BST)
Problems with spam protection
Wipipedia is set up not to allow articles to be saved if they have the text "< div" (without the space), apparently for spam protection. I tried to edit "List of sex positions". What's the way round this?--Taxwoman 23:22, 7 July 2006 (BST)
- Remove the "< div", which I have done :-). We were getting spammed on a regular basis before I put in the spam protection. Not a single bit of spam since then. Balzac 08:49, 8 July 2006 (BST)
The lack of the DIV tag is bothersome. I have had to spend quite a time getting around this when creating templates based from other sources. Since our current vandal(s?) is not so subtle, should we try bringing back the DIV? --Interesdom 06:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Updating main page
The main page says that there are over 700 articles, although now there are over 800. Should the main page be updated? ISD 15:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was waiting until it reached a thousand! I will update the main page but it is a bit tricky as I have to disable the Spam filter first, do the edit, then reenable it. Balzac 17:11, 8 July 2006 (BST)
A terminology question
What is the policy on terms? If any. I was initially tempted to use cock in the Deep Throat article, but decided against it. I have added a note on throat fucking after seeing the oral sex article however. I personally feel that medical terms are to be avoided. We are blessed by a glorious language with several short and powerful words for assorted topics. I would suggest that cock, cunt, fuck, piss, ... be the standard, but some will object and others may object officially. Bt 20:55, 25 July 2006 (BST)
- This is a completely unrestricted web site, so anyone can see it. It is hosted in England, and the people behind the site could be in serious trouble if anything violated the English indecent publications legislation. Having said that, the nature of the site is pretty clear to the most casual observer, and people likely to be shocked easily won't be studying it in detail. I'd say that if you use common sense, there is no problem with using four-letter words. And we keep a close eye on things; I for one would delete the whole article if it offended me.
- Hope that helps.--Taxwoman 22:54, 25 July 2006 (BST)
- It helps some, for which thanks. But not enough. I have no desire to call some idiot prosecutor down on someone's head (or perhaps yours are more sensible than our prosecutors, police, and legislators?). And the prospect of working at length on an article only to have it deleted for misuse of words -- which could have been avoided with a bit of warning -- isn't really a good option from my perspective. Bt 23:01, 25 July 2006 (BST)
- Let's see what the others think.-Taxwoman 23:06, 25 July 2006 (BST)
- If they come done on anyones head it will be mine! Personally I prefere the more medical terms, slang is OK but if it is being read by someone from another country then they could find it confusing. Balzac 23:11, 25 July 2006 (BST)
- My take on this is that if the term is what is in typical usage, the it should be used where appropriate but otherwise a more universal phrase/word should be used. For example, "throat fucking" is a term that is used by people and needs explaining as such and to morph it into something like "pharynx copulation" is nonsense and does not explain the subject; however, when talking about what throat fucking is, there is no need to use the word "cock" when "penis" is more explanatory, more universally understandable and less arguable. Slang does not always help - not all English-speaking peoples will understand that 'cock' = 'penis' and someone whose first language is not English is even more likely to get confused. For similar reasons, article titles should use the 'formal' name where applicable - e.g. Fellatio - with slang terms redirecting to it - e.g. Blow job. --Interesdom 10:54, 26 July 2006 (BST)
Sorry about the loss of service but a double wammy of hardware problems and a attack on the server meant that Conrad had to remove the server from the data centre and do a complete rebuild. Hopefully this will not happen again!. Balzac 20:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't matter Balzac, it's good to be back. ISD 09:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Could someone be so nice and move the explicit colour definitions from the div tags to MediaWiki:Monobook.css? The reason why I'm asking is because I'm using the classic skin instead, which has not been modified to use a black background (not that I'd want it to - I personally find black text on a white background much more readable), and the main page looks rather strange this way, since parts of it (but not others) are explicitly set to white text on a black background.
Thanks. :) -- Schneelocke 12:21, 15 April 2007 (BST)
- Sorry about that. Some other people have also had the same problem. I try to spend some time to fix the site so that both the default (fetish black) and the standard wipi (vanila white) both work. Balzac 21:26, 15 April 2007 (BST)
Hay - we've reached 1,000 articles! Hooray! ISD 14:42, 12 September 2007 (BST)