WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 5 / Everyday life B‑class
WikiProject iconMistress (lover) has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Everyday life. If you can improve it, please do.Vital articlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital articlesTemplate:Vital articlevital articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Jimmy DellaValle[edit]

Most of my recent edit is punctuation and grammar cleanup, but I also removed the reference to "(Yet another Jimmyism: 'When you marry your mistress you create a job vacancy.')" in the middle of the note. Is this about Jimmy DellaValle? The reference is about a quote from a particular person, so something someone else said doesn't belong there. Also, it appeared to be in the middle of the obituary quote. Steve Pucci | [[User talk:Steve

Oops, my bad, I misread the quote. I'm putting it back now. Steve Pucci | talk 17:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry you have lost me completely. What are you talking about?...and who the hell is Jimmy DellaValle? Giano | talk 17:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could do me a favor by pretending I never wrote the first paragraph. :-) I've restored the quote. Steve Pucci | talk 17:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have just googled Jimmy DellaValle! Not quite James Goldsmith is he? I'll do you the favour, and give silent thanks America does not see the need to export all it's "talented wit" to our unsullied shores;-D Giano | talk 17:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, well. Just to be clear, I only know about Jimmy DellaValle because I googled Jimmyism and that's what popped up first (well, after the "religion for agnostics" and a chat userid). :-) No, he's definitely not James Goldsmith, in any sense. Steve Pucci | talk 17:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research[edit]

This page was tagged for citation in 2007. It sounds like it was written by someone trying to justify in their own mind that a mistress is better than some other forms of relationship, mainly prostitution. It also has false information, for example: a concubine has some legal rights and predetermined arrangements with the family. According to this article, a concubine has none. Please address these issues and cite your sources, otherwise, I'm editing it all out. USchick (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discuss here for consensus![edit]


Relationships
(Outline)
Types
Genetic or adoptive
By marriage
Partner(s)
Intimate and sexual
Activities
Endings
Emotions and feelings
Practices
Abuse

Waldir, you should stop restoring the humongeous template while referring to your own user talk. Consensus on using the template can hardly develop in your userspace! Discuss here, please. Bishonen | talk 20:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Note: previous discussion occurred here. --Waldir talk 19:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The concept of a mistress only makes sense in the context of other human relationships. The template provides a convient way of providing that context and providing a comprehensive list of related articles.©Geni 18:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The concept of a mistress only makes sense in the context of other human relationships" What an incredibly pompous statement! The concept has made sense to numerous men and women throughout history, who needed no template to tell them what they were doing. The template is peurile and patronising to the reader. It rabbits on about abuse and God knows what else. It is ridiculous and has nothing to do with the subject! It distorts text and monopolises the page, peope want to see an attractive picture not a long winded template satisfying no-one but the person who placed it there.  Giacomo  18:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"God knows what else"So you admit you haven't actualy read the template? For the concept of a mistress to make sense you need a society where monogamy (either serial or lifelong) is the accepted standard for relationships. At the same time it has to consider it worthwhile distinguishing between short and long term extramarital relationships. There are other issues but it is fairly clear that the context is important.©Geni 19:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the article is so bad that people need a template of monumantal proportions (and that is monumantal) to inform then of the context, then we may as well give up writing and let people like you just have templates. Something that is larger than many pages themselves is ridiculous. It rambles off subject and goes to extremeties. No one minds a small, useful template at the bottom of the page, but something occuptying half the page is neither small or useful. That reads to me like some sort of psychobabble dreamed up in some drug crazed excuse for a waste of space.  Giacomo  19:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • and since when has Significant other been an encyclopedic term, it's the sort of naff expression used by mealy mouthed, lower middle class men who ask their way to the "little boy's room". It's worse than absurd, it's insulting to the page it's on. It will be on any page I have started over my dead body. Just look at all those bloody daft links, they have as much to do with having a mistress as the man in the moon. Giacomo  19:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In all probability some time before Leet was. Wikipedia templates are probably not in any case the right place to engage in class warfare. You also appear to be forgetting WP:OWN.©Geni 21:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, there are many terms linked from the article text that are part of the template: girlfriend, domestic partner, marriage, courtesan, concubine... just to cite a few. These links frame and contextualize the definition of the term mistress, and thus validate the point cited above by Geni (and the general purpose of (navigational templates) of providing context and a handy list of closely related terms for further reading. --Waldir talk 19:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "contextualize" and what pray is that supposed to mean? The template is almost larger than the page itself, and half the links are to rubbish pages of psychobabble known only in the "sunshine states." The template is too big, it is too daft and it serves no purpose at all,  Giacomo  19:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
contextualize. As far as I can tell all the words have been used in britian so use clearly goes beyond the sunshine states.©Geni 21:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well it's been around for what 4 years one some pretty high profile articles (Marriage for example appears to average around 7K pageviews a day) so thats a fair degree of gobsmacked. Heavy right side templates are not unknown. See Great Western Main Line#Services or Regent's Canal#History. So while it can be argued that such a template positioning is not ideal it is certainly not an incomprehensible position.©Geni 21:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Templates like this have been moving to the bottom/collapsed position for several years now, and it's time this one was improved to do that as well. We're supposed to be constantly improving, not insisting on doing things they way they were done in 2006. Until it's upgraded to current practice, I cannot see any reason to force its inclusion on this page, where it actively erodes the readability of the article. Risker (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
because it provides information and context. If the templates layout and positioning needs to be changed that can be done but is a seperate issue. I see no reason to wait untill such changes have been carried out before continueing to include it.©Geni 21:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes -- in fact, why don't you guys just do it if it's such a visual problem for you? I doubt anyone would oppose standardizing the template into the ((navbox)) form. --Waldir talk 07:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've made a navbox version at Template:Navbox close relationships. Please feel free to do with it as you choose. --RexxS (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That looks great, RexxxS. I am just unsure about the need to maintain two templates with identical content... We could try asking the opinion of people who work on that template, or just be bold and replace the current version (I don't think there would be any problems, since no actual content was removed). What do you think? --Waldir talk 15:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The side-bar template has documentation and talk page discussion, so has had more editor effort put in than the new one. I'd recommend asking the people who are likely to use either one what their preference would be. Perhaps keeping both is an option, with a note in the documentation on each pointing to the other? --RexxS (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am sure there are pages where such a template may possibly be useful. I cannot exactly think of one, but this spage is most definietly not it.  Giacomo  16:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well, what a good job I have finally spotted it and we can now address its enormity, ugliness and uselesssness. I am totally shocked that you an Admin, can feel this is an attractive addition to any page.  Giacomo  21:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aesthetics are generally considered to be subjective. In any case wikipedia tends towards a functionalist design philosophy of information first and appearance second.©Geni 21:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The function of a navigational template is to assist navigation to other closely related articles. It is not to "contextualise" an article. If the article requires further context, then write it in the article. There is a perfectly reasonable option of providing collapsible navigational templates at the bottom of an article, which gives the reader some choice in whether they want to navigate to related articles. In modern web design, we do not impose compulsory page elements on the viewer when we can offer them as optional. --RexxS (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Rex, I was amused there is even a page for the practice of marrying a wealthier partner. Half of the links are rubbish and psychobabble to keep idiots parting with their money to shrinks. Wish I had thought to marry a wealthier woman! and what the hell has elder abuse got to do with mistresses? and as for this one "keeping heart space" indeed - words fail me, complete bollox - just people being randy and seeing how much they can get away with - and good luck to them. Nothingat all to with mistresses.  Giacomo  06:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In fact many of the entries on the navigation template are diametrically opposed to the concept of the mistress. For example: "Family · Marriage · Husband · Wife" are links that are incompatible with the idea of a mistress. The mere presence of a mistress is enough, if discovered, to dissolve families, wreck marriages, cause husbands to divorce their wives and make the wives exasperated with their husbands. What kind of contextualisation one gains from all this mess is anyone's guess. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 07:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just like light and darkness must be defined in opposition to each other, the fact that these terms are opposite to "mistress" does not reduce their contextualizing value; on the contrary, they enhance it. --Waldir talk 07:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not need a navigation template to remind me in an obnoxious way about family values and all the other myriad of relationships so that I can appreciate what a mistress is at a deeper level. This is just wishful thinking for navbox fans. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 08:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's totally ridiculous and far more important to find some references, which I am doing, when the page was first written it did not require them - now it does, what it does not need is linking to a load pages competely off the subject. It seems there is no concencus for this template here. So that is the end of that.  Giacomo  16:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Male equivalent[edit]

I've always heard the male equivalent as "a mister". So I wasn't surprised to see that as the top definition for "mister" on urbandictionary.com. Alas this is my only resource and it's not even an overwhelming one by urbandictionary standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.217.183 (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There doesn't appear to be a male equivalent. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. Jim Michael (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur about Urban Dictionary not being a reliable source. But in Britain and the colonies, we use the term "fancy man."74.62.191.154 (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Fancy man' hasn't been widely used in the UK for years. Jim Michael (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disputed[edit]

The definition of 'Mistress' in this section denoting it simply as a lover is inaccurate and misleading. The actual primary definition of 'Mistress' is the female equivalent of 'Master' for a man. The Oxford dictionary defines a 'Mistress' as "... a woman in a position of authority" This section needs to be amended. Suggesting a 'Mistress' as a lover as the primary introduction to the word is utterly incorrect.

You're mistaken. 20-21st century usage is "primary", in Wikipedia articles as everywhere else. The OED is a dictionary on historical principles; it begins with the oldest meaning of the word. Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes like this: ~~~~. Bishonen | talk 12:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mistress (lover). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sugar babies[edit]

I'm wondering if the Sugar babies section should be developed into a standalone article. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep. Tons and tons of sources about that one as a basically distinct concept. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi The Drover's Wife. Thanks for the feedback. But is it a type of mistress? I worry that it will get a merge template on it in two seconds. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, yes, it's a type of mistress (albeit a more explicitly financial one), but it's a perfectly sensible use of Wikipedia:Summary style if the broken-out version isn't completely half-arsed. It would be not be hard to write a section that would be ridiculously long to keep in this article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Drover's Wife, that makes good sense. I guess I'll give it a start. Many thanks for the feedback and feel free to work on it. I'll start it as Sugar baby (lover) with an expected page move to something better. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would it not be at Sugar baby? The disambiguation is unnecessary, and (lover) is...awkward and a bit of a strange descriptor? The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi The Drover's Wife. Well I'll be darned! :) I just assumed it redirected to the dab page Sugar Baby. Actually, the dab page should be Sugar baby, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would be inclined to move Sugar baby (lover) to Sugar baby and Sugar Baby to Sugar baby (disambiguation). It is by far the primary topic among them in terms of coverage, and the (lover) disambiguator doesn't work well when it's dubious that people would actually self-describe as that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good, The Drover's Wife. I'll look after that. Would you please pop by the article talk about the removed content? Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Already did! The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mistress (lover). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Goomah" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Goomah and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 19#Goomah until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories