Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, delete for lack of strong relations between topics
This template was considered for deletion on 2006 August 6. The result of the discussion was "No consensus".
Cybersex
Should cybersex really be included in this template? It seems to me that it has absolutely nothing to do with cyborgs. I'm removing it from the template, but if you have a good reason why it should be included in the template put it back in and post your reason here. Beno100019:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the TfD discussion, the assertion put forward was that cybersex quite literally is sex (in the broad sense) facilitated by cyborgization (also in the broad sense). In other words, without computer-augmented humans, cybersex could not occur. Furthermore, phenomena and culture unique to cybersex are only possible because of this computer-augmentation of humans. 71.246.25.12600:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too general
Everything has to do with cyborgs. Computer processors, liquid crystal displays, prosthetic _anything_. Similarly, all those things could be said to be part of psychology and biology. I see no reason to have a series on Cyborgs where so many of the sub-topics it includes could be thrown just as easily into a number of other series. Plus, cyborgs are regarded as "fringe-y" and might serve to discredit the topics it is associated with. It should be deleted. LeoTrottier (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The depicted cyborg
The odd mechanical cyborg with kitchen utensils, pitchforks, cutlery and other strange things.
My AI-generated picture of a cyborg that is recognizable and representative.
Currently there is a very unfamiliar picture of a cyborg in this template. My suggestion would be to replace it for my, in my opinion, much nicer picture of a cyborg. Although it is generated by AI, I think it is much more representative of a cyborg. I tried to replace it, but my changes have already been reversed twice. What exactly is wrong with my picture? And don't people agree with me that you have to look at that one strange drawing for a long time to see what it is? It looks more like a pile of kitchen utensils, if I'm honest. That's not a cyborg... Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) (discover the power of thankfulness!) – 17:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That picture that is there now is not a real picture, it is a 16th century engraving of a pile of kitchen utensils that is supposed to form a 'cyborg'. What makes an old-fashioned, odd, unclear drawing made by a human better than a modern, representational, clear AI-generated image? There are no errors in it, it looks properly drawn, it is neat, uncluttered, etc. Now if I drew a picture myself, regardless of whether it's pretty or not (because I don't particularly like that engrave either), would it be allowed to stay on Wikipedia? Because then, after all, it is a real picture. I can also draw the picture over with pencil? Or redraw it with hand? Is that allowed? I find it a bit of an strange rule that you just cannot use AI-generated images. After all, there is no pretty replacement image for this AI-generated image. Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) (discover the power of thankfulness!) – 07:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think one reason is that it's quite clearly (and distractingly) AI. Look at the hair or the details inside the cut-outs on the left of the face: and you have that melty AI sheen. I think I'd prefer no image (there's no requirement for sidebars to have an image) over this. I'm indifferent about the current image. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk08:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Noun Borg 14249.svg
The general impression I get from the AI picture is more that of an incomplete flesh-covered robot than a cyborg. Perhaps it's evoking too much of the Terminator.
The 16th century print also looks more like a machine than "a being with both organic and biomechatronic body parts", and from the file description I'm not seeing any suggestion that this is meant to be a person.
Agree with the simple icon, both images above are less ideal and look more like actual robots (in the second case, partly covered) than cyborgs. Plus, a full image might not even be necessary, as an icon already conveys the idea while being less visually distracting. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
