This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sexology and sexuality This template is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles Law This template is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles

Delicious carbuncle has reinstated eccentric topics on this template that clearly shouldn't be there as "related topics", such as Animal cognition, Animal communication, Animal consciousness, Cetacean intelligence. He also bizarrely removed Tentacle erotica, which does belong on the template. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was really with the re-addition of articles that are about individual cases of sexual abuse of animals, rather than the removal of the other articles, but those bear discussing. Tentacle porn is not about animals, it is about fictional creatures, so it does not belong on this template. The others deal with the capacity of animals to understand or express consent for a sexual act with a human. I think these are relevant on that basis, but I am open to other opinions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where in any of those articles I removed is "the capacity of animals to understand or express consent for a sexual act with a human" even remotely touched on? And how can you imagine that Tentacle erotica is not related to sexual acts with animals (real or imagined)? Octopuses, incidentally, are not "fictional creatures". -Epipelagic (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this template meant to encompass humans having sex with imaginary animals and/or humans imagining having sex with animal parts in ways that are not possible in reality? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops... I see the problem now. I didn't mean to reinstate those previously deleted topics. I must have edited the wrong version. Sorry... I'll redo my edit, and you can see how that sits. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article on Zoophilia says it is a paraphilia involving sexual activity between human and non-human animals or a fixation on such practice. If we suppose also that it can be real or imagined, then Tentacle erotica is a form of zoophilia. Just as you would describe a painting of such acts as being about zoophilia. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that our coverage of zoophilia extends to the imaginary realm. Tentacle erotica is not about actual sexual activity between humans and (non-human) animals, even octopuses. It does not belong in this template. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see you have aggressively reverted yet again. What on earth are you thinking? You have no consensus to do that, since you have provided not a single justification for retaining them. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking we have a discussion here and see what other people have to say. What are you thinking? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]