Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions about Macrophilia. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I don't fully understand how to edit wikipedia articles etc. But I believe this article isn't right. Essentially it doesn't give enough information to the wider public. Which is what wikipedia is for.
These articles all explore further macrophilia. And microphilia. (Spelling may be wrong) Which hasn't been mentioned in the article. Which involves a shrunken person.
http://contemporaryqueer.com/2015/06/gay-macrophilia-sexual-fetish/
Pornhub is mentioned but I believe these are very popular websites and you can check that by looking at how many hits the website received every hour. (Maybe)
http://www.giantessworld.net/browse.php?type=recent
This website is popular and I believe shows how prevalent macrophilla is in the gay community:
Also you could add images of both male and female giants. Create a separate wikipedia article for microphilia. Show in media how giants/giantesses are explored e.g. fanfiction/photo manipulation etc
I know I understand very little of Wikipedia but I really want this topic to be told to people in a way that informs them fully. You could all create an article that really works well. And separate articles. For example: the fetish also incorporates other fetishes e.g. foot fetish.
I can't edit or do any of this because honestly don't know how but I'm asking all of you to please explore this properly. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.53.138 (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's another source tooo! https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-excess/201504/big-loveEaterjolly (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
In my work so-far rewriting the article in my sandbox, I've read and re-read most of all the sources. Unfortunately, the relevant chapter of our one book source is no longer freely available, but it is a valuable secondary source. Many of the articles actually used are haughty tertiaries. A few sources stick out with loads of anecdotal information, whether from the writer being a primary source or them writing a work compiled using information gathered from primaries, rather than regularly consultant psychologists with dubious-at-best experience with the community itself. Here I will list a few of them, to give other editors an opportunity to review them and make their own judgements on the veracity of these sources versus the others listed.
These all are very interesting reads. I would hold back on or just skim the felarya lore archive, as it is verbose and most of it has little to do directly with the matter of writing this article besides offering a source on relevant themes. More sources would be great, but I think the task of retrieving more sources can be demoted in importance at the moment. Eaterjolly (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
There has been a rising G/T (giant and tiny) movement that has been promoting the usage of "Size Fascination" as an all-encompassing term including macrophilia, but also non-sexual aspects on the interest/community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.230.105 (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually I was thinking and NPOV might apply to the naming. Since very many believe giant-and-tiny fascination isn't inherently a fetish, perhaps shrinking this article down to a section in larger article entitled "Size fascination in art". That would seem to make sense with the sources I found a while ago and posted down below that merely talk about giant or tiny size as a theme in art. An Alice in Wonderland image can be used for the lede and a Karbo image can be used for the section on Macrophilia and that solves that. Would you support that Flyer Reborn? Eaterjolly (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Macrophilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
After talking to Karbo about licensing on wikipedia, the fellow gave permission to use one image, but still hasn't clearly stated that image can be considered CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.
Attack of the 50ft poster doesn't well represent modern macrophiliac art, and is more suitable for a "History of macrophilia" section.
I mentioned putting 1 {mild full frontal nudity} in the lead and Karbo recommended 2 {as an sfw alternative} however prefers that their art not be censored in anyway for use on wikipedia.
I think there are two camps in modern macrophiliac artist communities GT (a.k.a. giant/tiny) and GTS (a.k.a. giantess). Giant/Tiny art tends to be gender-neutral, non-nude (except occasionally "tinies" who shrink out of their clothes), and gentle, while Giantess art tends to be gender-specific, full-nude, and either cruel or teasing. The first image perfectly characterizes all of those, depicting what would be GT on the left side of the image and what would be GTS on the right side.
In terms of notability, Karbo's images have been given awards on deviantart as well as featured in books and articles about macrophilia and vore.
I'd like to RfC other editors watching this page, what do you think? Eaterjolly (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Attack of the 50ft poster clearly is more famous and classic than Karbo's works, so it's no necessary to replace it.安眠3 (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
As above, the Attack of the 50ft Woman poster is obviously a much better choice for the article. Not just because it's more famous, but because it's also much more characteristic of macrophilia in general. All of the suggested examples of Karbo's works contain anthro elements, which are a further sub-niche (or more like cross-over elements from other distinct fetishes). They're fine artwork, and could potentially be used further down the page if one were to add a section describing various sub-genres of macrophilia (whether such a section would be a good fit for the wiki article or not), but it doesn't make any sense to replace the 50ft Woman poster in the lead with them. 49.180.97.106 (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think those points make a very good case. One by one:
"Anthro elements shouldn't be 'excluded' on those grounds, rather due-weight should apply."
1) I don't think anyone advocated for anthro elements to be "excluded" as such (an earlier comment suggested it maybe being appropriate further down the page in a hypothetical 'sub-genre' section), the point is simply that anthro represents a sub-genre/crossover fetish more than it represents macrophilia generally. Due-weight is the best reason anthro content is probably inappropriate for the header image.
"Karbo's art better reflects contemporary giant/tiny macrophile/microphile art."
2) It doesn't. The original Attack of the 50ft Woman poster is much more representative of the sorts of artwork much more commonly seen around the various micro/macro websites today. Even doing a quick Google image search using the term "macrophilia" returns hundreds of "giant person in a city" type images (including this very poster several times over), with relatively few examples of Karbo-like "anthro giant, frequently in fantasy setting" type images. Karbo's artwork might be popular, but it's still less representative of modern macrophilia than the AOTFFW poster.
"The current image is a movie poster from a Godzilla inspired film, the authors probably had nothing to do with the macro/micro community."
3) Irrelevant. Whether the image was created by/for macrophiles or not, it has long been popular in - and largely representative of - the macrophilia community. From what you say a few points down, I doubt you'd deny that this film (and others like it) has had a huge impact on the community, so wanting to set it aside simply because it wasn't made specifically as macrophilia fodder seems unjustified.
"The current image over-emphasizes sexualized macrophilia, and Karbo's art strikes a closer middle ground between those who sexualize the interest and those who view it as very strictly non-sexual."
4) There's nothing overly sexualised about the image at all, unless you're referring to her slightly skimpy makeshift clothing? Additionally, both candidate examples of Karbo's work you posted earlier are either on a similar level of "sexualisation" (somewhat skimpy lower-body clothing on the girl on the left in Dragon Brawl), or contain outright nudity (Naga and fairies). Regardless, macrophilia is most commonly described as being a sexual fetish/fantasy, with the article itself making this clear throughout. Objecting to the fact that the lead image might be slightly sexually suggestive - even if not sexually explicit - seems a little at odds with this.
"The current lead image belongs in the history of Macrophilia, but is almost irrelevant to the present."
5) As above, I couldn't disagree more. Not only is the AOTFFW poster still fairly representative of much of modern macrophilic artwork, but the movie itself is still totally relevant within the community. It has been remade/parodied many times over (including in the last few years), it continues to get referenced/parodied within community artwork, it (and its remakes, and movies inspired by it) continue to be cited as entry points into macrophilia, etc.
Just to be clear: I'm not arguing that the AOTFFW poster is absolutely the best image to be used for this article. I'm not even necessarily arguing that it's a better fit than ANY of Karbo's artworks, I'm mostly commenting in reference to the two candidate examples linked in the first post. Perhaps if someone were to link some additional candidates (from Karbo or elsewhere?), or if there were some other compromise we could come to (a montage of several images?), we might be able to agree on something that works better overall?
Sizeposter (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually many original illustrations from multiple versions of Alice in Wonderland exist in the public domain, perhaps one of those images would be most appropriate for the lead? Eaterjolly (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@Eaterjolly: I think it's safe to say that you're failing to rebut my overall point, and are also being a little too biased and hypocritical in your own positions.
For starters, I spend a lot of time around the non-sexualised giant/tiny communities on deviantart, discord, and other places (tumblr, twitter, etc), so I disagree that anything I've stated has suggested unfair "lack of inclusion" of these groups. Plenty of SFW G/t artists produce and enjoy giant-in-a-city content, it's not a scenario that is necessarily exclusionary of this group. But as I made clear in my previous reply, I'm not arguing that the AOTFFW poster is necessarily THE best and most representative lead image we could use. I merely stated that it's more representative of macrophilia in general than the proposed Karbo images - one of which also featured a destructive giant-in-a-city scenario.
As for sexualisation, the AOTFFW poster itself isn't sexualised in any meaningful way. As even you pointed out previously, the poster wasn't made as fetish material, it's literally a mainstream advertisement for a movie (the content of the movie itself isn't sexualised either, making it comparable to the Alice in Wonderland and Gulliver's Travels examples you mentioned later). The two Karbo images you proposed, on the other hand, contain much more directly-sexualised material (especially if you want to include "non-sexual violence/destruction" under this banner). The argument you're trying to make here harms your proposal more than it harms my rebuttal: you can't argue that the AOTFFW poster somehow caters too much towards the "sexualised" side of the community and/or features unrepresentative violence/destruction when the very images you advocated to replace it with are either more sexualised and/or also contain a similar degree of violence/destruction.
For another point where your argument is only hurting your position:
"Of the three most prominent macrophiliac artists (Karbo, Alloyrabbit, and FriendlyFoxpal) Karbo is the only one that draws nude art while Alloyrabbit and Karbo are the only of the three who have drawn city destruction (Karbo rarely does, and only seems to canonize cities safe from fetishized destruction)."
I take issue with your proclamation of these specific artists being "the three most prominent macrophiliac artists" (this highlights some of your own biases), but I'll happily grant it here for the sake of argument. Karbo and Alloyrabbit both frequently produce artwork of comparable (if not more extreme!) scenarios to the AOTFFW poster, and taking a quick look through FriendlyFoxpal's DA/tumblr reveals that not only have they drawn giant-in-a-city type images (which are comparable to the poster even without any destruction), but they've even favourited/reblogged multiple parodies of the AOTFFW poster. So the AOTFFW poster isn't reasonably representative of the sort of artwork commonly produced/enjoyed by macrophiles ... but "the three most prominent macrophilic artists" you specifically highlighted all produce and/or enjoy artwork comparable to the AOTFFW poster. Do you see the problem with what you're arguing here?
Anyway, most of the rest of your reply is irrelevant to this main point, and is probably better suited to being discussed in a different section about the scope of the article (whether "macrophilia" should also directly include the non-sexualised G/t community, or whether they should be considered separately). I think the best way forward here would be to start proposing a new set of potential lead images to see if we can decide on something better than the current AOTFFW poster. I'm personally not convinced that the public domain Alice in Wonderland images would be a better fit (even if not sexualised, underage content should probably be avoided), but I guess we'd need to post them up and have a chat about them.
Sizeposter (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
(make their own art based on their own interest)
Art:
Classic Fiction:
Eaterjolly (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22 Frozen. I see you reverted my edits to the Macrophilia page. My edits were a first attempt to fix a very troubling problem in the original version. That is, the erasure of the female presence within the sizeplay community. You stated in your reversion, "This is overwhelmingly a male thing, like the vast majority of sexual fetishes/paraphilias." I would ask you to site your source that most sexual fetishes are a "male thing." This page has a number of problems, including that it is poorly sourced, poorly researched, and, with regards to most fetishes, difficult to describe in full. Why is it necessary for you to keep this as a "male thing?" My edit was merely an attempt to make the subject material more inclusive, and correct a poorly researched description of a fetish through an entirely male-dominated perspective that, frankly, dominates most of western culture.
I would ask, are you a member of this community? Do you have first-hand experience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudocleverr (talk • contribs) 04:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The important thing to bear in mind when citing "experts" is there are none. It's fine to cite the speculation of experts, but it must be made clear that no formal studies have ever been made. Dr. Helen Friedman is a child psychologist, not a parasexual researcher, who is commenting off the cuff rather than citing any responsible research. Davy Kraken, "Macrophilia 101", dismisses Friedman's conjecture from a boots-on-the-street perspective. Dr. Mark Griffith's specialty is gambling and compulsive behavior, and his "Beginner's Guide to Macrophilia" and "One Giant Step for Man" are nothing more than his personal musings. If a man sees macrophilia as a male-dominated genre, it bears questioning whether minority voices have historically been excluded and silenced, rather than touting him as a legitimate authority. It's very different to collect the voices of the participants rather than solicit the uninformed opinion of outsiders. AborigenGTS (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC) AborigenGTS
I think we can probably resolve this through a "Gender Representation" sub-heading, moving a number of the sources about predominance of male interest in the fetish there. I agree with Aborigen here that finding formal research is difficult. A 1999 Salon article with an interview of a male internet community head is hardly a reliable source. Many internet communities are male-dominated by participation. Wikipedia itself has that issue. I'm concerned that we're simply creating a feedback loop of gender bias here, of the sort that has been an ongoing problem for the internet at large. The Psychology Today article notes in several places that academic research is lacking, and that it may be reporting information anecdotally. I note also that the 1999 edition of "Deviant Desires" by Katherine Gates is referenced - see footnote 6, The 2017 edition contains numerous interviews with female macrophiles, on the shifting gender dynamics within the community. In any case: there's no reason to list the default gender and roles right at the top of the article. The sub-heading I'm proposing would contain both the traditional view, along with citations, and also summarize with citation recent movements in terms of gender representation within online communities. Fair? Pseudocleverr (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22 Frozen. In the first place, as stated in my edit summary, my edit was a revert of my own action. As per WP:EW Exemptions rule #1, this action is not considered warring. Your revert of my edit does not have this exemption. I will allow your version to stand for the time being, as I'm working on a more comprehensive rewrite which will follow site guidelines.
Second, I would ask that you considers the comments above by AborigenGTS. To summarize: the current sourcing of male dominance within the fetish community is not well-cited. It is based primarily from quotes by internet community organizers that are upwards of twenty years old, and psychologists speaking outside their area of expertise. As has been documented, women are often under-represented in online sex-based communities. From the linked article: "This ongoing discussion struggles to acknowledge the fact that women are themselves consumers of pornography and that social stigma, restricted modes of access and a lack of ‘women-oriented’ material (rather than a lack of interest) have been reasons why women have not been such ‘visible’ porn consumers." (This is true of many online communities, including, as has been well-documented, Wikipedia itself.) SizeCon, an annual real-world gathering of macrophiles, was co-founded by a woman, and a substantial portion of the attendees are not men. And as I stated in my previous comment, the updated 2017 edition of "Deviant Desires" makes mention of women in the fetish, and their increasing rates of participation. (A copy of this edition is on its way to me at the moment.)
Finally: even if the conventional wisdom of male-dominance were true, it seems unnecessarily prescriptive and hostile to exclude women from the fetish in the first paragraph - and even in the first sentence of the article. This seems designed to make the problem of female exclusion worse. You wouldn't start an article about, say, sports cars, by mentioning in the first sentence that most owners and enthusiasts are men. A more relevant example, from a much better-maintained Wiki on human sexuality: Dominance and Submission. The fact that men more commonly play dominant roles and women submissive, is not mentioned in the introduction. Gender role pronouns are described, but their frequency left ambiguous.
As I said, I'm working on something more comprehensive. I will retain information about the conventional male domination of the fetish. I will not remove any current citations. I will also describe the weakness of these sources, add my own (including those here listed,) and leave open the question about gender participation based on contradicting information. I will play by the rules, and act in good faith, so that we can come to a consensus. I only ask that you do the same.
And also: linking to a comment you made on another account on a different talk page is not a "citation." It would even seem to suggest that, if you've had this disagreement on Wikipedia before, that you are not coming from a neutral point of view.Pseudocleverr (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
If evidence is scant one way or another the preferred method is to default to the most vocal bias? Or, alternatively, to take away an entire wikipedia page due to a difference of opinion? The primary convention for size paraphilia has seen a sizeable female presence. As staff for that convention I have the hard numbers to back this up. When women feel like their voice will be respected and not talked over by men, their participation in discussion of paraphilia goes up. Sizecon is very clear in its non-discrimination policy, and it has been the impetus for many women (myself included) to open up about something that they would have otherwise kept to themselves. The data on this is scant because this has only started to pick up fairly recently, and we are soon to see an influx of published material supporting this. But even supposing that this us a predominantly male thing, why must anything outside of that not be mentioned on this page at all? In the interest of providing an accurate overview, more than one specific permutation should be referrenced. And it is incredibly easy to go on various art and social media sites and find a plethora of female content creators. We are here, we deserve representation. You do not need to continue to have this discussion, and the fact that you've had to have it several times means further proves that there is credence to changing the male biased language. Management of this page is better left to people actively familiar with the content of this article and its community. DivineRobyn (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Flyer22 Frozen, I really don't understand the conflict here. New information has emerged to contradict what was, by your own admission, already a very weak set of sources. There are new editions of published material that challenge several statements within this article - while editions that are twenty-one years out of date continue to be cited. Many of the current citations are extremely weak, based on personal opinion of non-experts. They're decades old. And, while you cite sources that fetishization is male dominated, I cite others that say this may be a mistake, based on poor tools of a past era. I don't want to erase the status quo. I don't want to override that past era. I want to continue to mention it, alongside new information. Isn't that exciting to you, as a person who pursues knowledge? We might be learning something!
I will admit, my original edit changed a quote from a source, which I then corrected in good faith - please forgive an old man, because that was a error. As a person navigating a complicated site from a bygone era, I made a mistake. Otherwise, I've done nothing but change some gendered language in the opening paragraph to more neutral wording, to include other identities than the default, and to help address gender bias that exists across the internet and in Wikipedia. See my previous talk comment. Likewise, I don't think I need to cite sources that gender discrimination exists. Neutrality may not have the same standards on Wikipedia as it does on the internet as large, but can you point me to a policy that requires we actually hang a "Boys Only" club at the door? Moreover, the - from our sources - mostly unprovable gender statistics, seem highly irrelevant compared to the bulk of the article, which is about what the thing is, and not who it is that participates.
The fact that you are responding in such a visceral manner to such a minor change is telling. I have, to this point, edited precisely thirteen words. Meanwhile, you personally have fought this battle about gender expression in sex, again and again, across multiple accounts and pages, in ways that have created a great deal of conflict in your wake. You have a history. Your involvement here reads like bad faith to me. You're also rules lawyering pretty hard for a person defending a minor edit of a third-rate page. It feels like you're trying to scare off new editors, to keep an extremely weakly cited and frankly unnecessary statement at the very very tip-top of the page. Your behavior feels like harassment. I'm here as a good wikipedian, trying to improve this page. You seem to be fighting a turf war.
If I make good improvements that are well-cited, and you revert because they don't meet your unnecessary and, by public record, personal criteria? That will most certainly be edit warring. There is no reason for the first thing people see when they come to this site to be a gender breakdown. Even if the gender disparity can be proven empirically, which again, by our sources it can't, I highly doubt it needs to be discussed in the very first sentence.
Maybe in the fifth.
I believe you yourself have been accused of sockpuppetry in the past. No one has been persuaded or encouraged to be here. But your practice of imposing your beliefs on this site, putting your thumb on the scale where it need not be, is causing harm. If a news article drives many new editors toward a site, their voices are certainly down-regulated per WP:Sockpuppetry. But if those voices are here in good faith, and cite their sources? They aren't intended to be silenced by one gatekeeper, who is intent on ignoring new evidence.
I will continue to abide by community standards in good faith. Do the same, and I will continue to offer you the olive branch. I want to work with you here. We can make this page stub of a page better, together. But your agenda of making sure that, first thing, everyone knows "This is overwhelmingly a male thing"? That has to stop.
Utterly and entirely off topic. Does the name "Jae" mean anything to you?
Pseudocleverr (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I continue to try to be friendly here. What exactly are we fighting about?
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying: "There are citations that state this fetish is held by majority men."
And I'm saying, "That may be the case, but it isn't important enough to be stated in the first two sentences of this article, because this seems not to be the standard for other articles about activities, sexual or otherwise, which have gender disparities. Since by your own admission it's poorly cited, lets move it down further in the article, expand on it, and include new and updated sources which may cast doubt on this." See comment
in this thread beginning with your name followed by "In the first place, as stated in my edit summary," in which there are several new sources which I have linked, including an academic journal. These, among others, I would include in a future edit.
I am able to see that you've had multiple accounts litigating this same issue, because you've linked to them in this discussion. Crossroads that answers your first question.
What have I done that warrants a block? Threatening to have me blocked based on nothing but an attempt to improve the page, an error which I then corrected, and being drawn to this page by current event news, feels inflammatory. Re: new users on this page. They have contributed to the talk section, and not attempted to edit the page. I suspect they were also drawn by current event news. Per WP:Sockpuppetry and the sub-section on Meatpuppetry, I see no rule stating that these users aren't allowed to be present, or that their comments on a talk page are problematic. Certainly if things came to a vote, we wouldn't go by simple majority rule. But can you cite a rule that says they aren't allowed to speak? Crossroads that addresses your second.
But okay.
Folks. Stop reading for a second. Take a deep breath. Count to ten. Please, really do it.
I really want to de-escalate this situation. So I ask again: this thousands-word debate is based off an extremely, extremely minor edit. Currently nothing has changed. What I propose to change is also minor. Why are we fighting?
What would be a workable solution for you, to incorporate these new and updated sources?
Pseudocleverr (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm personally still largely unsure what is wrong with showing the entire picture of the situation. The majority of Libya's landmass is desert, but the geography section on that page mentions the parts that aren't. Even if we are to assume this is "largely a male thing" why does that mean no other perspectives should be mentioned? In any other description of a demographic, say for instance a country's populatuon, it would not just be the majority that gets mentioned. There would be a breakdown of the full demographic. Its impossible for me to stay silent on this issue anymore. Its the silence of women that has allowed this perception that its "largely a male thing" to go on as long as it has. It is hard to accurately gauge the makeup of a community if the culture in that community pressures people into silence. I advocate for women to self-actualize and in 20 years of experience on the subject, I have seen a rise in the amount of women vocal about their interest in macrophilia, either as self-identifying as macro, or expressing an interest in male giants, or even women expressing an interest in female giants. People who were isolated from each other and made to feel that no one else feels this way, who have only recently found harrassment-free environments to connect in. Rather than having wikipedia say that people like them objectively don't exist enough to bear mention does a disservice. Blanket statements about the full breadth and scope of paraphilia cannot be applied as objective fact in every single instance. Asserting that men fantasizing about women is the only manifestation of macrophilia worth mentioning is a lot more disingenuous than mentioning that people who engage in macrophilia differently dare to exist, even if it is in conflict with a source that can only be applied here in a very general, vague sense. I will make no attempts to edit, I have no insistence on making an edit war. But there is a discussion page here, and I will use it to advocate for a more nuanced page. I just don't see why using inclusive language does anything wrong here. DivineRobyn (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
What trouble is being caused? I have no intention to disadvantage anyone, I am adding to a discussion that exists. Is it against the rules to have a discussion in a talk page? I am just trying to understand why there is opposition to making the language more inclusive, it seems like a harmless edit to make. DivineRobyn (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.