Talk:Technosexuality

Robots[change source]

As a section I can see it may be of use in an article about robots, but it has little relevance to this article --Bärl iner 14:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole section on Robots should be cut only to include information specifically pertaining to Technosexuality and robots. All the stuff on cultural feelings on Robots should be only on the robot page. - BrownE34 talk contribs 15:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree... the robots section is about feelings towards robots... not just robots themselves... and technosexuality is about people's feelings towards robots. However, I will continue to improve the secion, and we will see what we can conclude afterwards. Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 15:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, have you read the guideline on Wikipedia about undue weight? That means giving an article too much emphasis on one aspect, which may not be as important as other areas. Maybe you could look at the robot section with that in mind. Also, please remember consensus. Listening to others and finding common ground makes editing a lot more fun for everyone. Jeffpw 15:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a lot of the material in this robot section comes from the main robot article. Perhaps it might be a good idea to shorten this section, and add a link to the main robot article. Jeffpw 15:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it didnt... the stuff on the main robot article came from here, because I put it there. :p (look @ all the references I did jeff! which you tought me hehe) :p Anyway, I dont see why we should remove it or shorten it. It in fact needs to be expanded. That section is entirely relevant because it is about sexual and personal attraction to robots, which is what the main aspect of the article is about. Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 15:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Global Oppinions (sic) towards Robots" belongs in the robots article. "Global Opinions towards technosexuality" belongs here, and it needs relevant weight. It does not need complex language, quotes from manufacturers or percentages of robots across the world.

An article about Robots which mentions sexuality remains an article about robots. A brief mention of sexuality does not make the entire section relevant here. --Bärl iner 15:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Global (sexuality-related) Opinions towards Robots' is the same as 'Global Technosexuality' and 'Global views towards sexuality' in one phrase! And omg... it does need the percentage of robots in the world, because those percentages indicate how prone to technosexuality the people in those areas will be. Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 16:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do tend to agree with Bärliner, here. The robots section could use some pruning, and then just linking to it from this article. As things now stand, the article is terribly out of balance, and should be retitled if you don't want to remove any of the robot stuff. Because right now it is mostly about robots with just a little about technosexuality. Jeffpw 16:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the section in disupute. Ben seems happy, and I congratulate him on learnin g about the new community and language that is simple english. One minor point, my maths is correct. If 50% of the world's robots are in Asia, and 40% of Asia's are in Japan, then one fifth of the world's are in Japan. :) --Bärl iner 17:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not 40% of the asia's robots that are in Japan. It is 40% of the world's that are... Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference[change source]

How was it possible to get the same two references to be labelled the same number? (reference 6) Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 18:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference[change source]

How was it possible to get the same two references to be labelled the same number? (reference 6) Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 18:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of using "ref" at the beginning of the first ref use <ref name fred>. Next time just use Cite error: Invalid parameter in <ref> tag

. Dont forget the / or all the rest of the article becomes a reference

They both have the code <ref name= Biglione> and therefore link to the same thing. You need to put in a different link to get a different reference.

Gwib^-(talk)- 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

huh? how did you get them to link to 'ref name=biglione'? ~~~~