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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not seeing this subject has having anything to do with medicine. I've added some other projects that seem more appropriate but not removed WikiProject Medicine for now as it has been given a rating which possibly suggests that at least one person associated with WikiProject Medicine thinks that it is legit. What do we think? Remove it or not? Can anybody do that or do we need WikiProject Medicine to decide? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Methods for discussing relationship anarchy sectionedit
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
While the rest of the article seems OK, and I've !voted to keep it on the AfD, I think the "Methods for discussing relationship anarchy" section is absolutely no good at all and that this is probably the main reason why the whole article looks bad to some people. Most of it is unreferenced and it reads more like a "how to" than encyclopaedic content. My first thought was that it looked like was pasted from elsewhere but I didn't find any evidence of that when I did a quick check. Nonetheless, I think it is unfixably unencyclopaedic and we should just remove it. Any thoughts or objections? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
Done (Be bold! If someone disagrees, you can always discuss: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.) czar 00:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
