Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of sex positions

List of sex positions

This list has been in the top 100 for pages viewed on Wikipedia for at least a year. It contains references, drawings and is at least as comprehensive as the average human sexuality book. It is the currently the number one list on Wikipedia by number of page views (not just looking at en, but overall) and is the first link returned from a Google search of list of sex positions. I consider it featured list quality or very close. Jrincayc 12:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it is very good, but I think this has too much content to be a list! Perhaps it should be nominated on
  WP:FAC - if they shoot it down then we may take it. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support seems quite comprehensive. I love the pictures (its funny how generic sex position picture always have a guy with a huge beard and long hair). Where can you see the top 100 most viewed pages on wikipedia?--The_stuart 14:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current Statistics and old statistics on usage. Jrincayc 12:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot, intresting stuff!--The_stuart 13:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rama 12:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Ian ≡ talk 01:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object, I don't like how image heavy this is. Images should complement the list (i.e. go alongside the text that is there), not lengthen it (some sections would be much much shorter if the images weren't there). Most of the images are on the subpages, so I'd suggest removing some of them from this list. I'm also a bit displeased with the inconsistent linking on the page (some entries just redirect to another entry's article and there the two are said to be synonymous). --Spangineer (háblame) 17:53, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I didn't get any comments on it, so I just went in and made the changes myself. The page still seems to be rather messy, but now I'm neutral. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:56, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Jrincayc 12:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support well that was educational. --Sophitus 22:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• NOTE: Let's give this to 13:52 on 9 August (ie a whole fortnight) to allow for Spangineer's concerns to be addressed and/or for further comments, jguk 08:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  sex positions 2A05:1A00:208:1D00:A9DD:B8CA:F4F5:4D5A (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]