Talk:Orgasm

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Orgasm article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 6 months

Physiology Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to the field of physiology.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

The content of Coregasm was merged into Orgasm. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

please put the painting back

it was awesome and perfectly captured the subject matter! 50.108.10.65 (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

We should reach a consensus over the lead image, or lack thereof. MOS:LEADIMAGE is the relevant guideline.

I support having no image, as is permitted per the first bullet point there. This seems like a good example of an article that has "no easy representation". The Vixen poster seems too sexually suggestive and unencyclopedic and I am strongly against it.

If people really want an image, I guess now's a time to gather candidates for an RfC (for which "no image" should be an option). Crossroads ^-talk- 23:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC is certainly preferred over the passive edit war that is currently occurring. I support either no image or an image that is unambiguously encyclopedic; agreed that the Vixen poster probably is not a good choice. I saw no problem with the prior painting; other classical art pieces might also be a fit. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The prior painting (Szał, Podkowiński) was such an excellent and tasteful balance for an encyclopedia. It should be restored. Glenohumeral13 (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads and Glenohumeral13: I put the Frenzy of Exultations painting in rev 1093101727 on 14 June 2022 and there were no problems for over two years (except three days later the addition). I think it was a good picture for depicting this not-so-easy subject. Now that it has been removed and with the disagreement over which image to put at the top of this article, an edit war has begun. -- Zand Dev 16:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alza08: On February 10, 2024 user Alza08 changed the lead image with File:Vixen poster 01.jpg, stating that "it unambiguously illustrates the article content". After that on July 14, 2024 user Rim sim added two gifs, soon removed by Crossroads. On November 22, 2024 user Alza08 changed again the lead image, reinstating the poster (saying that the previous one was "irrelevant"). The same day user Crossroads removed the image, leaving the article incipit image-free. The day later user AirmanAbir18plus messed up a bit with illustrations, but at the end he chose the Ecstasy painting (File:Szał uniesień, Gallery of 19th-Century Polish Art in the Sukiennice, 2022, 02.jpg). Three days later (27 nov) user Alza08 removed the image again because "there is no evidence that image is associated with the subject content". And later this discussion started... -- Zand Dev 16:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads, Jtrevor99, Glenohumeral13, and Alza08: So how do we proceed? -- Zand Dev 11:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest putting together candidates for an RfC and then after some preliminary discussion, running it. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked here and here. -- Zand Dev 09:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]