Talk:Terminology within polyamory

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

See WP:NOT DCDuring 23:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words for Open Relationship

Polyamory is nothing but another term for an open relationship or a non-monogamous relationship so why all the weasel words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.247.198 (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Terminology within polyamory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mithrilstar.org/Polyamory%20FAQ-Ravenhearts.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

just a thought

This… article seems to fail from the outset. Firstly, there are very few Wikipedia pages that begin with Terminology, so little with which to compare. The closest I find is Terminology of homosexuality, which is really not very good but demonstrates better consideration for structure.

Why "within polyamory" rather than "of polyamory"?

And if this is really "a thing," then where is the credible source that offers up such a list?

Isn't it really no more than a miserly glossary — not the purpose of Wikipedia — with its few entries rendered as prose?

It begins with the grand declaration that it looks at the evolution and meaning of the word "polyamory" itself. Neither of these actually happens: the origin and concretization of the word is nothing but a POV-clogged expansion of the Terminology section at the head of Polyamory, and delves no further into the "meaning" much less considers whether there may have been any "evolution" at all.

There is among people claiming "poly" status a tendency toward couple-centric thinking, that polyamory is "a little fun on the side" of a "real" relationship. Unless this is addressed directly, any discussion becomes quickly muddled. Similarly, shouldn't it be defined here what is meant by "a polyamorous relationship"?

At best, this is greatly outdated. It appears that "compersion" is old hat and "NRE" fading fast. On the other hand, this page (like Polyamory) makes no mention of unicorn hunters, established couples "seeking our girl" for a closed polyfidelitous threesome. The term was originally sarcastic, indicating how unlikely it is for any given couple to find their "perfect match," almost always someone who is single, sane, younger, attractive, childfree, ready to move into their bedroom, always giving, never needing, who will gladly stay a lifetime or quietly leave should one or the other of The Couple tire of the situation.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Reminder that online lifestyle mags aren’t really RS

In my view it’s better to be behind the times than to be summarizing opinion articles from lifestyle publications. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)