Talk:Blowjob

Redirect to the disambig page

Per WP:LEAST, I believe it would be best if this "article" redirect to Blow job (disambiguation). The disambiguation page has 13 links to articles other than fellatio, but a reader searching for anything other than fellatio, currently, is redirected to a page that shows a woman sucking a cock. No need for that surprise, when if the reader is looking for "blowjob" as in "fellatio" they're only one more click away. No need to unnecessarily shock the kiddies and little old ladies. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you here because it's simple -- WP:Least, which is an essay, does not apply here. The WP:Alternative title policy does. It's obvious that the WP:Primary topic for "blowjob" is fellatio (as even evidenced by listings at the Blow job (disambiguation) page); in other words, the vast majority of our readers who type in "blowjob" will be looking for the Fellatio article. I've got nothing else to state to you on this topic, except that you should not be giving more weight to essays over policies; or even to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images guideline in this case, since that guideline is not meant for an instance such as this. You can start a WP:RfC on this matter, or alert as many related or unrelated WikiProjects and talk pages to it as you want, but I'm certain that the WP:Consensus will be with me on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the same applies to someone typing in "blow job." Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here from the village pump notification. Agree with the WP:Primary topic argument. this is the correct target. The other items in the disambig are clearly references to this topic. There is no meaning of "blow job" that is ambiguous and could be referring to something other than a literal (or figurative) fellatio. Regarding suprise, when searching for "blow job" people would be certainly surprised to land someplace else, and WP:NOTCENSORED Gaijin42 (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A person could know full-well what a "blow job" is (or not know, for that matter) and still be looking for the book, or one of the movies or songs by that title. Why should they have to stop and look at an illustration of fellatio and click through to what they're looking for? Remember one of the most important policies is WP:IGNORE. I'm not saying that we should remove "fellatio" from Wikipedia; I'm saying that, per WP:LEAST, it would be a good idea to ignore the usual rule in this case, and let the readers who typed in "blow job" looking for "fellatio" put in the extra click. I look forward to hearing from others on this matter. Lightbreather (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of the excitement concerning blowjob and cocksucker and dicksucker? Is it to avoid having people looking for those terms being taken directly to fellatio which features an in-your-face picture in the lead? humor is in the mind of the beholder In general I'm sympathetic to such concern, but we have to assume that anyone looking for these terms is prepared to get the details including an image—that's what people come to Wikipedia for. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Least Astonishment You can't seriously claim astonishment at Blowjob leading to Fellatio.
Ignore All Rules is for catching clear error cases in the rules. Scratch that argument, as per above.
The disambiguation page has 13 links to articles other than fellatio. Ahh! Good point! An interesting argument worth examining!

I checked Disambiguation#Is_there_a_primary_topic? rules, and I preceded to check the Page View stats on Fellatio vs ALL 18 REDIRECT PAGES ADDED TOGETHER. For most of those pages it is exceedingly unlikely in the extreme that people came in through "blowjob" - for example Goo_(album) which happens to have a song named blowjob. Needless to say, Fellatio's 322331 pageviews in the last 90 days swamps all other disambig targets combined. The only serious alternative is Blow_Job_(film) 53100 times in the last 90 days. Blow_Job_(film) is about Fellatio, so a searcher could hardly be Astonished to find Fellatio. I doubt anyone with an elementary school English reading ability could be remotely Astonished come across Fellatio even if they did trip over it searching for any of the 18 disambig targets. I took the question as seriously as possible, but I can't find a way to justify it with anything other than "I wish Fellatio wasn't in the Encyclopedia". Verdict:

KEEP Blowjob and Blow_job as redirects to Fellatio. Indisputable primary target. Alsee (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Blowjob and Blow job should both redirect to Fellatio as the clear primary topic, and it's the meaning that all the other items on the disambig page reference so no-one is likely to be be astonished. The choice of lead image for the Fellatio article is a separate issue, and the talk page of a redirect is not the place to discuss it. Qwfp (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that Fellatio is far and away the prime subject. Other links would seem to be to films/books/songs featuring fellatio (apart from the cocktail, which is simply named after fellatio) IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find the OP's arguments hard to swallow. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the other options in the disambiguous link it seems clear to me that Fellatio would be the primary topic. Not to knock on Mr Andy Warhol but he wouldn't even make the cut. Blow Job for Fellatio may be more known than the actual term fellatio.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Blowjob (disambiguation) NOT because the current redirect sends the reader to a picture of fellatio in progress WP:NOTCENSORED, but because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedic format implies that the reader ought to have a choice of which "blowjob" or "blow job" article to view, on the OFF CHANCE the interest was in any of the five songs, the novel, the play or the movie by those names. That's how encyclopedia work. loupgarous (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've alerted Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography to this discussion, and Lightbreather alerted other pages to this discussion earlier on (for, example, the aforementioned WP:Village pump). Flyer22 (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]