DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Overblown Discussion

[edit]

At the top of this page is the > decade-old notice:

"This article was nominated for deletion on 11 March 2009. The result of the discussion was delete."

So why is the article still here? Let alone the cataract of bilge dedicated to it? JohndanR (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted in 2009 following a deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trypophobia). It was created again in 2012. 'Cataract of bilge' is quite a cool phrase, but you're going to have to unpack that a bit: what are you talking about? Girth Summit (blether) 15:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that this was the state of the article at that time, and I'd agree that that should have been deleted. It was recreated a while later by someone actually trying to do a good job at it, and eventually the prior history was restored as well. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just happened upon this article and comment. The 2009 AFD might have been a fair assessment in 2009, but things have moved on since then. Right now, there are ~500 references to papers/articles on Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Trypophobia) and ~50 on pubmed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Trypophobia). So the topic appears to be notable (it satisfies WP:GNG).45154james (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible removal of page image

[edit]

I'm wondering if it's wise to have a page image for this. People with trypophobia may feel very uncomfortable seeing a visual representation of their phobia while researching it. That said, I do not have this phobia, so perhaps this isn't the best idea. DoctorDizzy (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to say this same thing. This is not an article about lotus seed pods.
I see no reason an intentionally inflaming image is required to guarantee article quality on this page but not on other articles about psychological conditions than can also be inflamed by visual stimuli. If this particular image is necessary to improve the quality of this article, why doesn't the article Paranoia require an image saying, "You! Yes, YOU! The person reading this! Wikipedia is watching YOU"? That would be fully comparable, but for some reason Paranoia has no image whatsoever. Perhaps the article Epilepsy requires a flashing GIF too, in order to assure the quality of the article? Why does Entomophobia not need a photo of insects? Why doesn't Ommetaphobia need a visual image of eyes? SteubenGlass (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please, get a backbone. 184.147.86.173 (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please see the ridiculous amount of times this has been raised in the archives. CFCF (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bizarre response to a triggering image. "Simply get over your phobia" is not helpful or productive.
The fact that the inclusion of an unhidden image on this page has been repeatedly questioned over its lifetime should be proof enough that it needs to be changed. Simply hiding the image can provide further detail for those interested without making the search engine results for this page a minefield. 2600:2B00:891C:6200:55F:148F:F6CD:ACB (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, just don't know how to make this change Polkol777 (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can just remove the image, if consensus has been reached.
-Cat-paw-v1 editing from an IP because, due to the triggering image, I do not want this page in my contributons.
67.188.75.153 (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it should be noted that there is a different image for seed pods of Nelumbo nucifera, and that specific image has been been used in trolling. 67.188.75.153 (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – It would be prudent to review the last major discussion on this, Talk:Trypophobia/Archive 6#Further discussion on picture appropriateness, before taking any action here. And then if you feel you want to revisit or challenge the current consensus, feel free to start a new RfC. Just be prepared that unless you are bringing something new to the table, it is likely to end in the same outcome. The !votes were near unanimous in the last one in support of retaining the image in the lead, although there was some disagreement over whether or not it should be collapsed or obscured in some way, so no action was taken at that time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Most People Here Are In Favor Of Removing The Image, With The Only Exceptions Being CFCF And A Single-Purpose IP That Is Likely A Troll. 99.89.36.232 (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense, there is policy here that dictates it is to remain, even if a small minority of people keep coming here to suggest it be removed. Frankly, this is mostly about most experienced editors not bothering to comment on such a perennially discussed topic, where hundreds of prior comments support the strong consensus of keeping the image.
    There are many reasons why the arguments raised to justify its removal are invalid, and the image is illustrative without being unnecessarily inflammatory as per WP:SHOCK. You can draw direct parallells to the discussion at Arachnophobia - where a neutral and simple image is used and continues to be used. A further difference is that trypophobia is not even recognized as a phobia beyond in the term. In contrast to arachnophobia, the scientific literature does not support it being either common or of reasonable clinical significance.
    Also, don't start an RfC, it will be a massive waste of time - and will end up with the same result. If you really care, please just read the policy links and prior discussions and then WP:drop it. CFCF (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "10% To 18% Is Certainly Common, And There Is Literature To Support It Being Significant- Just Check The References. 99.89.36.232 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As discomfort, not as a clinical phobia. The article also discusses how exposure is probably effective treatment. We should also not forget how this page is probably the least offensive page you can find online on the topic. A google search of the topic generates far more images that are likely to illicit WP:SHOCK. CFCF (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most People Here...

So far, those who have weighed in above with registered accounts have less than 100 edits. I would venture a guess that they need to review our policies and guidelines, as well as past discussions, before weighing in with a credible opinion. We don't simply vote yay or nay and tally the votes. That's not how it works here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here Is A Policy To Consider: WP:NPA 99.89.36.232 (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is this relevant? Also, you do not need to capitalize every word in your sentences. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It Is Relevant Because You Have Been Making Personal Attacks. 99.89.36.232 (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that someone writes poorly by using capitalization wrong and in a way that makes it hard to read - is not a personal attack. Neither is stating that accounts with under 100 edits are less likely to have a proper understanding of Wikipedia policies or guidelines. CFCF (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GoneIn60 and @CFCF, I have a compromise. What if we replaced the current image with Figure 1B in this article, since it is a drawing it is not as triggering (I say this as someone with trypophobia), as the current image, while still being informative. User:Cat-paw-v1/67.188.75.153 (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are we beyond the PA claim now? It appears so.
The option of replacing with a drawing was brought up but never fully explored. It might be worth further discussion. However, I don't think the Figure 1B drawing done by a patient is necessarily the right selection, UNLESS it can be shown that it accurately depicts/represents the subject. What one patient or non-expert considers "triggering" may differ greatly from another. It would be best to use a drawing (if we decide to go that route) that is undoubtedly one that experts agree on.
Once you have a good idea of what you want to propose, begin a new RfC to discuss drawing vs. photo. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m generally opposed to an RfC, because it’s a cumbersome process that will cement a choice in a way that later hinders a simple consensus replacement if we find something even better.
That article is CC-BY (I didn’t confirm that the illustration were top), but it has quite a few images that could be discussed.
However I think a couple of things could be noted:
1. Trypophobia is not considered a clinical phobia, it is more a general discomfort for most individuals. This lowers the bar for what is an acceptable photo. I think we should avoid anything that is intentionally shocking, but I do think that a classic example is the most useful image to use here.
2. The article linked above, itself uses many images that are more shocking than the one we use, and I believe this has the same rationale. It is deemed important enough to illustrate the phenomenon, while also considering it isn’t a clinical phobia.
3. Being not a clinical phobia, there are classic examples of images that illicit the response, and it makes sense to use as classic an example as possible.
4. The lotus seed pod is a very classic example that really does illustrate the phenomenon very well. I think it is justified to keep it in the article.
5. I’m not convinced that having two images is better than having one - but that would be the solution upon bringing in anything more than the lotus seed pod, i.e. to move the lotus seed pod image further down in the article.
CFCF (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand wanting to avoid another tedious RfC, but if there's a viable option that wasn't fully explored previously (i.e. bringing something new to the table), then it may be warranted, at least eventually when it comes time to gauge consensus.
If the RfC question is asked the right way, we can avoid cementing a particular drawing choice. We would instead broadly ask: Is a drawing preferred over a photo in the lead, or will a drawing at least lower the shock value that some have expressed concerns about? Is the shock value concern even a valid concern to begin with? Something along those lines would be key in the next RfC.
If I had to venture a guess, based on past discussion, most will likely oppose any change until it can be shown in reliable sources that the phobia is generally accepted as a clinical condition. And although we wouldn't want to peg an RfC to a particular drawing, it would help to have a good example in hand before initiating the RfC. The burden for getting all these ducks in a row lies on the IP or party interested in pursuing this further. GoneIn60 (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is the same as it was in 2021. we should hide the image, so anyone who doesn't know what it is will be able to click to unhide it. That's all I have to say. —Soap— 14:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't sensored. And nor should it be. That is all i have to say. Masterhatch (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]