This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
– Any further moves proposals should start up in a new section. -- Banjeboi 00:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
If anyone had bothered to ask, I would not have supported this move. Both of the sexually-related definitions for "gigolo" from Google (define:gigolo) are specifically with a female client. So is the first sense from Merriam-Webster [1]. And Dictionary.com, American Heritage, and WordNet [2]. Much of the article focuses on male-male interactions, so giving this article a specifically heterosexual title does not seem wholly accurate. HalJor (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The reasoning given by the editor who moved the page (that: "male" prostitute is unduly sexist - implying prostitutes are female by default) doesn't warrant moving the page to the far more pejorative "Gigolo". - NYArtsnWords (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I think a good compromise would be, Prostitution of males since it is parallel with an existing name structure, i.e. Prostitution of children and in structure is not sexist in its naming scheme. - Davodd (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I have undone the move and added a move request to the top of the page (assuming User talk:Davodd wants this move). - NYArtsnWords (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requested moves is an optional use page created for non-administrators who need help in moving an article that cannot be moved without deleting a page (so, by definition it does not apply to me as I have been an admin for years). Also, you propose changing an optional venue into a mandatory one - which is added bureaucracy (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy) that is both anti-wiki and unneeded. (for further information on this, see WP:CREEP). - Davodd (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Davodd- Why didn't you wait for some discussion before moving again!! Wikipedia:Requested moves is not "an optional use page...for non-administrators who need help in moving an article". It is a page for controversial moves: "In some situations, the value of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus." Sure, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy... but it is also built on discussion and consensus, which a sudden page move does not facilitate. - NYArtsnWords (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Am am sorry that you appear to have become so emotionally upset by a simple article move. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia:Requested moves is optional and was written for non-admins (check the history of the discussion as to how and why it was created). Most WP guidelines are optional. Wikipedia is built upon discussion found consensus - and in this case, my move started one. The beauty of wiki - as opposed to peer-reviewed academia - is that changes usually happen DURING the consensus building. That is the spirit of wiki -- not bringing everything to a standstill until consensus is achieved. That level of bureaucracy would kill Wikipedia. - Davodd (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: "so emotionally upset" - please avoid personal attacks (see also Wikipedia:Civility). No one is asking for "peer-reviewed academia" - just some discussion before controversial changes are put forward.- NYArtsnWords (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry that you percieved my apology to be a personal attack. That was not my intention. I based my assumption - which is apparently wrong in your case - that use of exclamation marks in talk page comments is a sign of being emotionally upset. (please refer to "again!!" in your above comment). As for "discussion before controversial changes are put forward" - as worded, that's an unworkable catch 22 and a bureaucratic nightmare. - Davodd (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The "again!!" was one of surprise. As for a "bureaucratic nightmare" - I just don't see how the key ideas of the wikipedia -- consensus and discussion -- lead automatically to "unworkable" "bureaucracy". You cited Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Even that section says "Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion." In the same way, WP:Be Bold has caveats: "Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's most precious assets, it is important that contributors take care of the common good, or at least that they not edit recklessly. However, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, often quite painlessly. It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further. The unintended consequences of certain significant changes can be more lasting, for better or for worse. This includes changes that are difficult to undo for technical reasons, like renaming the articles, creating new categories (see below) or other non-article pages, etc. Such edits are often warranted but please be sure you know what you are doing and feel free to ask for advice. Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects... should be done with extra care." - NYArtsnWords (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
A clarification: in referring to Wikipedia:Requested moves above, I was specifically referring to the use of {{moveto|NewName}} (or one of the other move templates) and to the other procedures mentioned on the "Requested moves" page. - NYArtsnWords (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
"Prostitution of males" is a poor choice of title. Like "prostitution of children," it implies a lack of choice or control, like trafficking or pimping. "Male prostitution," like "prostitution" or "female prostitution," is a much better name. The claim that the name was sexist because the prostitution article focuses on women is, I think, a little specious. A far better solution would have been to move those parts of "Prostitution" that deal specifically with women to a new article named "Female prostitution." Exploding Boy (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Or, another option is merging this article into Prostitution so that the parent is a more complete article. I don't really I support that, but by reviewing Prostitution, it is little more than a loose collection of listed paragraphs and a valid argument could be made that there is no need for child articles when the main article is in such shambles. - Davodd (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
As I've suggested over there already, I think a better solution would be to move the information dealing specifically with female prostitution to a new article, and keep Prostitution as a general article dealing with prostitution and sex work. Or otherwise simply change "Prostitution" to a disambig page. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I have zero problem with this proposal as long as there is an analogous Female prostitution page. - Davodd (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
While I don't believe the move was necessary, Prostitution by males ("by" instead of "of") would seem to me to be a better choice. - NYArtsnWords (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Prostitution "by" males sounds awkward and slightly unnatural to me. Male prostitution is grammatically fine, and much more in line with our other article titles. Plus, "prostitution by males" has the opposite problem of "Prostitution of males," namely that it doesn't include those people who are trafficked or prostituted against their will. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Once again, as should be obvious, I really don't find "Male prostitution" to be a problematic title and I encourage a rollback to that title, awaiting further discussion. - NYArtsnWords (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and I hope the person who originally moved the article will take the initiative and move it back. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Resolved