Talk:Bear (gay culture)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

original research

citation needed everywhere. a lot of this article reads as original research and may warrant the tag. it should be cleaned up or we should add the tag {Original research}} --Extrabatteries (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose adding section

Should there be a link to connect this article to the Fat acceptance movement page? --Extrabatteries (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Pop Culture

For quite a long time there was a section listing the numerous places where 'bear' was mentioned in mainstream and pop culture. The list began growing bigger and bigger as the bear community got more exposure, and ultimately was so big that it began getting smaller again. Now it's gone completely. Though I understand wikipedia is not a place to just dump a list in an article, I do think it bears (ha!) mentioning that this relatively small sub-culture has become part of the general lexicon due to numerous appearances in mainstream culture. CouplandForever (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I don't know how I missed the section completely. I really thought it was gone. I am going to clean it up though. CouplandForever (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to delete unsourced terms

The section #Terminology is stuffed with dubious terms, some I suspect of being jokes rather than common cultural terms. I propose all those that are unsourced (most of them) are deleted. Any objections? --Fæ (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and think that only those terms that are more widely known and used should suffice for the section. Fumitol|talk|cont 04:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, as it has been 5 days since my proposal I have trimmed unsourced terms (some of which may have been read as offensive). I suggest any terms added are correctly sourced and any re-added without sources promptly deleted as failures against WP:V. --Fæ (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The References in popular culture sec. is precisely the type of minutiae we do not need. I recommend it be mostly deleted, perhaps replaced with streamlined general examples. This type of detail even when referenced simply doesn't meet the standard of significance. Djathinkimacowboy 23:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time to start pruning again. Doctor Whom (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)