Talk:Dick Bush

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

You really did him dirty there PhearOfTheDark (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going to have to disagree with @Oktayey on this one-- while yes, it is somewhat humorous, it doesn't particularly tarnish the page of someone named "Dick Bush". Furthermore, "bush" is a relatively common term for pubic hair, but as far as I can tell there are no redirects in place for it-- this means it's entirely probable that someone who had only ever heard of it referred to as "bush" could end up on this article-- the distinction could be genuinely helpful. In all other cases, the distinction doesn't detract from anything in particular; funny, perhaps, but it falls well in line with Wikipedia:Humor even if it were purely for humorous purposes (which again, it is not-- it serves a genuine purpose, however rare the possibility may be). Oman395 (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Redirect should be restored. Peter L Griffin (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminded of Dick's cock. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no chance that someone could land on this page while looking for "pubic hair". The hatnote is mildly amusing but basically pointless. Zacwill (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zacwill I'd argue again that it is entirely possible for a user to land here while looking for public hair. There are a large number of places without proper sexual education; as a result, people may have only ever heard the term bush (perhaps in a pornographic or otherwise sexual context, as that's where it's usually found, being a somewhat informal term). This is purely anecdotal, but I've tended to hear "bush" more often when referring to female anatomy; as a result, a search for "Dick Bush" could easily be generated by a user who:

a. Does not know the proper term, and has only ever heard bush

b. Has not heard of it used in a male context, and therefore is looking for the male equivalent.

It's also worth noting that a user who would search "bush" would also be more likely to use an informal term like "dick", as opposed to "penis" or "male".

Again, while this is very much an uncommon occurrence, it's entirely possible for it to still happen-- think about it: we stand to lose nothing from its inclusion, but have the possibility of genuinely helping someone. Wouldn't you take that option? Oman395 (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Zacwill (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, Dick Bush, the man, is not well known either. If here were an A-tier celebrity, its likely that most of the traffic here would be for him. Since he's not, I suspect it's probable that a high-ish percentage of the low traffic that does come to this page could be looking for pubic hair. Peter L Griffin (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]