Talk:Penis

Possible vandalism?

While I remember the Doctor implying he has "two of other things" besides hearts, I don't remember anything specific this citation could be based on.... do we count this as vandalism or improper citation or what? Jamar Redstone ☎ 17:40, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Just delete it. We really don't know for sure what he was referring to.--Matau

Image

If the image previously on this page is reuploaded as a JPG file, I see no reason why it should be deleted. T:NOT SFW says "However, we make no guarantee that the images and articles on this site will be 100% 'safe for work'. This is because the Doctor Who universe is not a 100% 'safe for work' creation," so unless there's some other, less obvious rule being broken I don't see the issue. The3rdnimon ☎ 02:18, May 8, 2017 (UTC)

The rule on this site not being "safe for work" was created in reference to a controversial upload of a picture of half of a woman's ass. This was not created in replacement for, nor does it retroactively revoke, Wiki's community guidelines.

Don't post porn, shock images, or explicit descriptions of sex... On most wikis, this includes nudity (including bare breasts and butts).Fandom Community Guidelines

The page goes on to clarify that artsy representations of nudity might be accepted, and it may be acccepted if it is a medical or educational wiki. Zygon, I can promise you, is not an artsy production. We are no a medical or educational wiki. We are a wiki about a British children's television show from the 1960s. Thus porn is not acceptable. OS25 (Talk) 02:52, May 8, 2017 (UTC)

You're materially wrong about the content of this wiki, OS25. Please consult Tardis:ParentPage. We're about a franchise that includes material up to the equivalent of (US) R-rated material, which certainly can include brief, full-frontal male nudity. Torchwood: Children of Earth actually does include one shot of Barrowman's penis, so it's not just this BBV image. And Doctor Who was never a children's program. It was, at the explicit will of Sydney Newman, made by the (adult) Drama Department. And later producers have often confirmed it is meant for families, not kids. Never mind the fact that several of the 1990s novels are well and truly adult in nature, particularly RTD's New Adventures entry.

Moreover, if Doctor Who were considered an "aimed at children" show by Fandom, anon editing wouldn't be allowed. But it's not. It's important to remember that the parent show, in America, airs at 9 PM, not 9 AM.

As a local bureaucrat, I have absolutely no issue with this image. I'm going to consult with my colleagues at Fandom later in the week to see whether this image is actually in violation of the FCG. It may well be, and if so, I'll have no problem deleting it. But I have a duty of care to the non-censorship policy of the wiki to actually get, and not just assume, a Fandom takedown request.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  03:24: Mon 08 May 2017

I brought up the most simple representation of the idea of the wikia merely to illustrate that we're a wiki about a fictional franchise. But I stand by my point that such a graphic image is unhelpful on a site covering a fictional sci-fi franchise.

Thank you for investigating further. OS25 (Talk) 04:07, May 8, 2017 (UTC)

One could argue it suits a fair bit. For example, that penises aren't just limited to humanity, and that Zygons assume that among other things when engaging human form. If we feel the need to have an article describing the existence of penises within the in-universe context of Doctor Who, how does adding an image that suggests some details of this and exemplifies it make things any worse?

Adding to what you said, the show itself has gone through phases of being aimed towards adults. John Wiles has said multiple times that he attempted to reach an adult audience during his era. With this in mind, I don't think Doctor Who can be considered solely a kids' show - in fact, its so diverse that you can't really make any sweeping generalisations of that nature. Cats12 (Talk) 19:32, May 8, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But I don't think this magically means that we should allow an image to be uploaded of Daniel Harcourt's penis. OS25 (Talk) 19:36, May 8, 2017 (UTC)

If the image is in-universe and from a valid source, then I see no problem from it beeing added. Is not like it will be used on the Doctor, or even on Zygon. This is an article about penises. Is nothing but natural to illustrate it, if such an image exists within the DWU. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 19:41, May 8, 2017 (UTC)

Your argument was based - at least in part - on Doctor Who being a "children's show". My argument is that Doctor Who is far too long-running to be generalised in this way. Overall it is more of a family show, and parts of it are clearly aimed towards adults. From the intellectual, high concept drama of Wiles' era to the gritty, dark VNAs, Doctor Who shows a wide spectrum of adult material, all of which is covered by this wiki. Cats12 (Talk) 19:32, May 8, 2017 (UTC)

Concluding the image discussion

As promised, above, I spoke with my Fandom colleagues about this image and it was determined to be in violation of Fandom's ToU. Accordingly, it has been deleted and protected from re-uploading.

Obviously, cases of full frontal nudity in the DWU are exceedingly rare. They're so much of an outlier, there's no need to dilute the basic anti-censorship message that we promulgate on pages like Tardis:ParentPage. Indeed our ParentPage has had significant staff oversight, and no one has ever red-flagged it as possibly conflicting with broader Fandom guidelines.

We don't censor, and this wiki is not at all aimed at kids.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  21:15: Tue 09 May 2017

Age determination

If there are any problems with younger children stumbling across this by accident or similarly, couldn't an idea be to install a function that have you choose when you were born and determine whether you're old enough to read the content, or something similar, like you have on series-pages with the warning of spoilers present? --DCLM ☎ 21:33, May 9, 2017 (UTC)

No. That's not how we do things. If you click on a page about penises, prepare to read content about penises. We're not about to start a system of censorship based on who we perceive should have access to certain bits of DWU information. You wouldn't need to sign anything to take out an encyclopedia, which would also have such information. Why is this such a huge point of debate? It's not even a developed article yet.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 23:14, May 9, 2017 (UTC)