Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/10/Category:Nude or partially nude people with electric toothbrushes

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Nude_or_partially_nude_people_with_electric_toothbrushes[edit]

Nearly (1 image) empty category which creates awful clutter in the cat tree. Why do we need to have "nude people" as subcat in every cat? Nude people are nothing bad, are they? Apparently they are... Saibo (Δ) 17:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And that single low-quality not-safe-for-work photo, is it really own work? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Please help me to find the relation to this discussion. ;) Anyway: if you find out it is a copyvio, or have hints for it, tell us all! --Saibo (Δ) 18:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Let me explain the idea (which I recently applied to many different sucats I created). That solution (that category) allows 2 different things :
    1. It prevents unexpected viewing of sexually explicit or erotic content. Indeed someone who'd search for images of electric toothbrushes would not see this nude file directly (he'd have to take consciously the necessary step to see this file in the subcat). Indeed, even if Commons is not censored (and I personally fight censorship quite strongly!), we must also think about people who use Commons to find images (especially underage people).
    2. Nevertheless, since it shows an electric toothbrush, one should be able to find this file in his searches. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks TwoWings - however, it is a clear step towards censorship, isn't it? First bury down so it is harder to find, then mark it as "bad" content, then hide, then delete.
      Yes, it prevents from unexpected viewing - do you want to do the same for photos with spiders, Mohammeds, pink clothing? ;) I hope and think you understand. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 11:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
      I know that kind of argument and even if I understand one can think that, I somehow think it's a bit paranoid (I'd compare it to the one saying that forbidding smoking in some public places is a regression as far as freedoms are concerned). I honestly think we have to deal with the diversity of people and thinking. I suppose (and hope) you would think it's not acceptable to have sex in a street. Some pedestrians would be pleased to watch such an act, others would be shocked, others (mainly among the yougsters) could even be traumatized. We need consensual solutions to keep both freedoms and protections. That's how societies work and I guess that's also how Commons should work. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
    • BTW : I came with this idea of subcats because I was sick of the many reverts each time I tried to add cats on nude/sex files. Since I created those cats, I have not seen any revert, so I suppose that solution is the best solution to content everyone. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Like you are sick of seeing reverts I am sick of seeing those categories instead of regarding naked humans as the most natural thing of the world (at least more than it is currently here at COM). As you can see in the file history it also worked without this category. ;-) More or less.
      • Due to all those "Nude or partially nude people" cats we have people saying: "Look, those fetish Commonists - they even have a category for nude people on jumping balls!!!!11" (fictive (?) example).
      • I would not create such categories myself and I do not like they are here. As of now there are also no other supporters (okay, I know, they would come). Btw: in Commons:Categories there isn't such an exception for this kind of phobia categories, is it? However, thanks for this talk. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
        • 1. I agree for the general statement about nudity. But a) explicit/vulgar/sexualized nudity (like this pic with the toohbrush) is another matter and can clearly have consequences for underage people ; b) Commons also needs to take in consideration the reality of our societies (its goal is not to change the world, or it won't follow the rule of being neutral).
        • 2. I have to admit I had not thought that way before and you might be right. But is it such a common way of judging us ? I don't think so. I think it's a marginal way of seeing Commons, whereas the wish to remove cats or to bring censorship on Commons is far less marginal. We can't struggle everything... (BTW, yes we do have such a picture ;-) and it's even more necessary to create a subcat that it concerns a toy generally used by children!)
        • 3. There's neither mention of "phobia cats" (as you say) nor forbidding. And it's not only about phobia, as you say. It's just a way to respect people who have problems about those kinds of sensitive subjects (nudity, sex, violence, death) - this can be phobias, but not only (traumas, for instance, is a reason that can be accepted and respected - I personally would like people to protect be from beheaded photos that traumatize me). Anyway, if we want nude pics to be accepted (and in a way our way of thinking respected), we also have to accept other considerations (respect doesn't work one-way) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • ← 1. I do not have the aim to build a repository for underage people whose parents do not like these children to see naked people (respectively whose parents raise/teach this child in a way that leads to a shocked/frightened child if it sees naked people). That simple. ;-)
  • 2. I am pretty sure that I had seen this kind of thinking about Commons' cats somewhere (sadly I do not remember where, currently).
    I knew that we have this picture - just didn't know if it has a cat "nude people on jumping balls". As I see now it hasn't - and: it misses currently a category for the ball.
  • 3. It is not easy but I do not think those phobia cats are the right way. Do you create a own cat "Dead people in Berlin" just because you need to hide a photo of a dead person/body? And "Mohammed pictures in Berlin"? Just to demonstrate... Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
    Well, again, we have to respect the diversity of people and thinking. It's the best way to struggle against censorship on Commons.
    Another thing : it's easy, in a way, to judge people who want to protect youngsters from nude pics. I agree that there's some exagerations and that many parents create phobias with such "morals". But any psychologist would tell you that it's not a question of moral if you show sex/porn pictures to young children. I have a baby girl and even if I deeply consider I won't hide nudity from her, I'll protect her from some explicit/sexualized pictures (e.g. pics like the one with the toothbrush or the one with the woman on the jumping ball). It's also easy to say "let's show nudity" without thinking of the reality of life. As a teacher, I would not work with Commons website with my classes because I know what kind of behaviours or conflicts I would see among my students if they found nude pictures (and even worse if it's more about sex, masturbation, etc). I just know it because it's already difficult sometimes with extracts of movies or paintings ! I regret that reality (I'm actually very angry against those stupid behaviours each time I'm confronted to them) but I have to deal with it. Therefore having tenets is one thing, dealing with reality is another thing ! That's why we sometimes need consensual solutions, even if they're not optimal. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Agree, I do or would (will no publish if it is fictive or not) also not show my children (if they were young) sexuality/real porn - for whatever reason ... something psychological.
I do still not really think that those phobia cats are the right way (Commons is not censored and those cats really are on the slope to it) - but accept them.
So, those cats are there to hide content - which content to hide? Those content of which the majority (of? users? viewers/readers?) thinks that it is justified to tolerate the drawbacks of such hypercategorization for the sake of the interests of a minority/group of people, right? Hard to find the right threshold of which cat to create to hide and which not (compare with my point 3 above).
A bit practice: File:Jumping ball 01.jpg is now in Category:People with balls - do you want to create a subcat Category:Nude or partially nude people with balls? Btw: Category:Anal balls is directly in Category:Balls - shouldn't it be in a subcat Category:Possibly sexual uses of balls?
Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Iam against too much or too deep categories for a simply practical reason. It is simply only needed to create more specific and deeper cats if the superordinated cat contains already some similar pictures who can be grouped together in a new sub-cat. It is irrelevant if there are naked people or not. Everbody is responsible for himself regarding what he or his children on PC views. If someone wants he can simply use his own private filtering software.On the other side i can understand your sorrow but i see it so: when there is a new cat with only one image, it feels lonely... :-) --AtelierMonpli (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I prefer more simple categories for a single pic than a too deep category that just matches very few pictures. --Funfood Funtalk 08:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Question for those who want the deletion of this cat (and maybe equivalent cats I guess). What do you propose to struggle against people who constantly remove non-nude cats on nude files ?! I can understand that you are against my solution, but it's not constructive if you have no better solution ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't removed after re-addition with explanation anymore. ;) My solution would be to do it as I did - explain the people that the picture belongs in the el. toothbrushes cat. And if people have a problem with nude people with toothbrushes in small(! - not even large) thumbnails (category gallery) it is their problem - not mine. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't speak about this specific picture. It's a general remark. There are pictures for which I undid removals several times and I think I explained everytime. I'm sick of that. And I repeat that I have not seen any problem since I started to create such subcats. Now the problem comes from people like you (and like me, actually!) who'd prefer to keep them in the mother cats and question the pertinence of these cats. I've spent hours creating subcats to resolve those problems and I'm really angry to see that it's now asked for deletion from people who are supposed to be on my side ! It's the sort of dilemma that makes me wish to abandon my contributions on Commons. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I know that you are on the same side - but why should this phobia cat system be the solution to this social(?) problem? I am happy to see earlier discussions of it - could you give me links? I also think that we can keep this discussion open for a while - and/or invite other people to comment. --Saibo (Δ) 19:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I won't waste my time looking for example but here are some I remember (see the history) : this file has been refused as an example of depth of field several times even when I explained in the summary of the edition (then I created a subcat and there was no problem, I even had a thanking award for that !) ; another example of regular removing of cat ; you'll also find several examples among the files of this cat because it's a very sensible topic (and objectively we may understand that a file of a nude woman with a hijab cannot be accepted directly in the cat concerning hijabs, at least by those who believe in that religion). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol wtf vote.svg WTF?. Commons categories are meant to be able to find things, not to hide things. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Multichill (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
    That DOESN'T hide anything ! You can find the subcat very easily if you look for electric toothbrushes. But it's indirect because it prevents from unwanted vision of explicit nudity. Please read my comments above about my child or my class. We're a pedagogical project so we have to care about pedagogy ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
    It DOES hide - or do you see any pictures with nude persons in the main cat? No? → Hidden. Remember my comments from above: first hidden with one click, then hidden with a password, then completely deleted. You did ask for solutions: the solution is: if someone doesn't want to see nude people he should bury himself under his blanket in bed and close the eyes - problem solved, isn't it? --Saibo (Δ) 21:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
    Dear Saibo. You know that I respect and like you, that I consider you as clever and I've always thought you hated hypocrisy as much as I do. But - and maybe it's not voluntary - you've been somehow hypocrit in your previous message. Let me explain :
    1) Let's close that sterile debate about the word "hidden". With that kind of category, are the files hidden ? Yes if we think "hidden" means "not directly visible". No if we think "hidden" means "we try to keep it secret". In fact, those cats work as a cupboard : when you enter the kitchen, the door of the cupboard is closed (but unlocked). The cups are indeed hidden but it doesn't prevent you from opening the door if you need cups. Those categories even have an advantage that your cupboard generally doesn't have : the door is labelled and you know what you may find before opening it !
    2) Your "solution" : come on ! You're clever enough to know and admit it's NOT a solution ! It clearly means "we don't work for people who have problems with nudity so we ask them not to use Commons"! Is that acceptable ? No. Because the project is suppoed to be useful for anyone, whatever their culture and opinions are.
    Let's face it (reality) : those who have problems with nude/sexual pics will never make a step towards us. And we won't accept to make those files invisible or to build a censored Commons. There's a rule of "neutrality" on Commons and that means that we have to find consensual solutions to respect the most we can the different ways of thinking. If we don't accept my solution (which was IMO the only step I could accept), I only see a dead end ! And therefore a continuous battle of reverts ! Is that what you really want ? Well if that's a yes, you won't count on me anymore to struggle against censorship because I'm sick of this revert battle (I repeat that I've seen no revert for the subcats I created and added). It's like Israel and Palestine : if no-one wants to make a step and accept the differences, the war will never end... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
    Hi again TwoWings, thanks for your reply!
    Ad 1): I am not really sure that the cupboard comparison is a appropriate one. I will continue anyway: Why don't we put all files in small cupboards (which contain each one file)? Right - because it is annoying if you need to open ten cupboards (each inside another cupboard) to get to your cup. Rather we usually use big cupboards so you only need to open a low number of cupboards and then can look at all the cups to find one which you like.
    Ad 2): You cannot be useful for everybody. Easy example: someone hates computers and electronic devices (frightened of electricity). Will you help him, print commons to a book with glossy paper and 11 million pages and deliver it to his door? No, you will not, I guess. Maybe he can put on rubber gloves and a aluminum foil hat to get protection - but this is his job, isn't it?
    If you think the phobia cats are the solution then you need to create also some for spiders, snakes, women with naked faces and ... pink Ferraris with white polka dots.
    Ad 3): I will not work in a censored Commons but, luckily, as of now, per definition, it isn't. More comparisons: You do not tolerate a bit vandalism to make vandals happy, do you?
    4): Have there been previous discussions about these cats? --Saibo (Δ) 15:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
    (I forgot to come back here !...)
    1) Well, it's not about having a cupboard for isolated glasses (the fact that we have only one pic in that cat is just both a coincidence and a consequence of category tree because of need of accessibility - see below for the demonstration) people do have different cupboards (at least different doors of their cupboards) for cups, glasses, plates, etc. And some also have different places for daily glasses and special-occasions glasses (e.g. champagne glasses). Some also do prefer to use less accessible doors for dangerous or fragile things in order not to be used/discovered/broken by underage kids. We could multiply the comparisons and yes I maintain it's a good comparison !
    2)Your comparison is (delibarately, I suppose) kind of burlesque. You KNOW that your example is just about taste and hate, which is not the case of nudity, sexuality, violence, death and vulgarity, that are (I guess) the only topics for which it's also a question of moral and/or psychology (again, a kid seeing a porn pic is not something we should wish!). So yes, I agree we cannot content everyone's fears, but when something is more than a fear and has strong implications in our societies, we should consider that reality.
    3) We do not tolerat vandalism but when we find a solution or a tool to decrease the number of vandalism acts we do accept it, we don't reject it by saying "let's continue the old way, you know, the unefficient and time-consuming way ?"
    4) No we haven't (to my knowledge), I agree. I just continued and improved some pre-existing "system" (I haven't created the first cats with such logic). But I did post several messages at the village pump and various talk pages and no-one has ever complained. Actually, I'll post a link to this page on the talk page of Commons:Nudity so that we'll have more opinions. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


hello TwoWings,

I am not against your work. I am only a new "categorizer", and see, that there are a lot of nude or partially nude people with objects. To think about filters and censorship is not my job as categorizer. But it can be to find the best categories for a picture or names for a category.

We have Category:Nude_or_partially_nude_women_with_objects. There i cannot find the pic with the toothbrush. [[1]]

As a good categorizer i do a good job when a picture gets all categories it belongs to. To put the image to "toothbruhes" seems to be logical, also to Category:Shaved genitalia (female) and Category:Women's sanitary objects (joke) and Category:People holding objects ....

Every fuckin' logo seems to get more categories... but to think about censorship is not our first job as categorizer. I think, this starts with [[2]] and the second edit: (Remove Category:Toothbrushes because an image of masturbation would not be anticiapated when viewing the category). It is very difficult, and now i go to read Commons:Nudity, maybe i should do this first *sry*.

To create a new category for this picture is one way to save it, not to hide it; i can understand you very well. But.... if you now get a pic with a partially-nude-women with-toothbrush (not electrically) will you make a new category for it? It cannot stay in "toothbrush"...and not in "electrically" and i think, this is the real problem. best wishes --AtelierMonpli (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you care abut categorizing, you question the category tree, not one isolated category, and you look for solutions.
So here is a solution with 2 new cats I created (we may delete them eventually if decided...), which creates the following category tree, where - as you can see - you can now find easily this category with 4 different paths !
THIS is a solution. I repeat that nobody have brought any other alternative solution here. I showed you above that you'll always have people removing non-nude cats on nude files, even if we explain them our way of thinking (which some will never accept, so that's useless - try to add the hijab cat on the file I mentioned above, you'll see what will happen, you'll never win !). I repeat : we have to deal with reality by having consensual and pragmatic solutions. I propose one with such categories. I still wait for alternatives... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
hm...an other solution for deal: We made under every category when needed the cat.: "caution: may contain peanuts or nudity" :-) --AtelierMonpli (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
That won't do ! When you reach the page of a category, you generally watch the files without reading any introduction or templates. And even if you do, you may see the first pics. I also repeat my example of classes in schools. If I asked my pupils to look for images of an object (for whatever work, let's just make the hypothesis), I would prefer if they don't find directly' the nude files (if they're enough concentrated on their work, they would not follow their research in nude subcats as long as they found non nude files they needed). It's a question of logic applied to our reality (real life, I mean), not a Commons/Internet/virtual-centered logic with no sense of reality ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
BTW, if this cat is questioned, I suppose we may question (and want the deletion of) all subcats of Category:Nude or partially nude people with objects and Category:Nude or partially nude people by setting ? Is that what you really want ? Maybe Category:Nude or partially nude people by posture or those by hair color, too ? After all, why do we have category trees by posture or hair color ? What's the need ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we are again at the problem of a useful categoration tree. At the moment, it is patchwork. I could live with deep cats like the one that is discussed here, but one has to ask which topic earns owns subcats, because there may be many more sensibilities than just with nudity. Pragmatic solutions are very welcome. --Funfood Funtalk 13:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the truth is that we're reaching the limits of what our current static categorisation can effectively do; maybe we should think about how we can combine a tagging approach to create dynamic categorisation (eg instead of many "Category:Nude and X", "Category:Nude and Y" you'd just have tag:nude and tag:X, tag:Y etc, with category intersections dynamically generated by the software on demand). There are no easy answers, but in the long term (years...) there has to be a better way to manage these things - just look at flickr, for instance. In the mean time, though, we'll just have to do our best with the system we have. Rd232 (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete because this cat does not reflect the watch. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
    What do you mean ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    If you don't use simple cats, at least you need to be precise: you can clearly see that the person wears a watch. The cat does not account for that important information and is therefore dispensable. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    There's no logic in your argument ! Would you remove the cat "people with bottles" from File:Bastille Tumble 2010 Toulouse Wine.JPG with the argument that this guy has also a hat and that "people with bottles" doesn't reflect that he's got a hat ?!!! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment whether you agree with this type of category or not, I hope we can agree that a DR of a single category of the type is not the place to establish whether such categories should exist. Close this DR as "keep, for now", and open a wider discussion, presumably at COM:VP. The outcome of that discussion will cover this category. Rd232 (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

VP is not the right place - it is too fast. We can move (I do not want to see that we discussed here all the kBs for nothing) this discussion to a CfD for "Nude or partially nude people with foobar" if you like. This discussion spawned since this category was created new. --Saibo (Δ) 21:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure, that (or COM:VPR, which is slower-moving) would work, but in any case it should be advertised appropriately, maybe with a watchlist-notice. It's a solution to a site-wide issue, and the question of whether to apply it widely (or any alternatives to the same question) merits wide discussion to ensure that the decision reflects the community's view, and not just a very small sample. Rd232 (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment to those who think we just have to keep reverting : see that revert and the history of the file. Do you really think reverting is the best solution to keep files accessible ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Where is the problem? It is in "people in bed" now. The user was right - it was missing. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Per the WMF resolution which includes categorization according to the w:Principle of least astonishment. Essentially as TwoWings has argued throughout this discussion. --99of9 (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per board resolution and principle of least astonishment. People looking for an image of a toothbrush aren't generally interested in one used for masturbation. --JN466 17:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    • You both are completely missing that the WMF's stupid ideas have no relevance for us (the community). --Saibo (Δ) 20:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The board resolution is relevant for the community if the community thinks it relevant - if it expresses something the community agrees with. You clearly think the resolution is stupid; fine. Others don't. Rd232 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I am completely with you. It just seems that the WMF ideas are cited here as god given and the truth of truth. That is what I want to point to. --Saibo (Δ) 22:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
          • I don't think people are citing the resolution as binding... at least I haven't had that impression. Rd232 (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
            • I have the impression that there is not much own reasoning behind by those plain "per WMF blabla" comments. God said we have to, so we do. --Saibo (Δ) 00:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
              • Saibo, your "impression" is completely wrong, of course I have "own reasoning" behind my support for the WMF resolution. In fact, I find your statement somewhat offensive given that I was heavily involved (as you were) in developing the COM:SEX proposal that first proposed applying Surprise to categorization. --99of9 (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
                • I had based my impression on the pure comment here - no offense intended, sorry if it seemed like. Of course you may comment more or less as you like. Just: If someone uninvolved would read e.g. your comment I think he could mean that the WMF thingy is binding for us. --Saibo (Δ) 03:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The composition of the board is not entirely independent of the community, is it. In addition, they are members of the community too, and highly trusted members at that; otherwise they wouldn't be on the board. Lastly, if I had a material disagreement with the board resolution, I would have no compunction saying so. But the fact is that I have seen far too many, far too daft violations of the principle of least astonishment in Commons. Nothing against sexual images; but having images of toys and toothbrushes in the same category as images of people using these objects for masturbation is just stupid. --JN466 06:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
        • What is stupid with "having images of toys and toothbrushes in the same category as images of people using these objects for masturbation"? Still the same objects which the cat is about, hm? Is having File:Cat-and-computer.JPG in Category:Computer mouse stupid, too? --Saibo (Δ) 16:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Just face it, Saibo : a toothbrush is not design for masturbation, isn't it ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
            • Oh, well, maybe the manufacturers think of this side-use? ;-) And: A computer mouse isn't designed as a toy for kittens, is it? --Saibo (Δ) 17:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
            • Is having File:Cat-and-computer.JPG in Category:Computer mouse stupid, too? - yes. Yes it is. A category about an object should have images primarily of that object (as all the other images in that category are). Images of use (and abuse) of the object should be in a subcategory. We have Category:People using computers and Category:Cats with computers but not Category:People using a computer mouse, never mind Category:Animals using a computer mouse, but that's what we should have. Rd232 (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
              • I do not agree (and please note that the category wasn't added by me). If we only have a single image it needs to be in Category:Computer mouse. Otherwise you cannot find it if you do a catscan for "Young animals" AND "computer mouse". Yes, somewhere there needs to be a limit - this image includes a power strip but only partly and totally out of the main focus of the image - so I would say that this image doesn't belong in Category:Power strips. --Saibo (Δ) 21:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
                • Catscan provides for traversing subcategories, so I don't think that's an issue. (It rarely works for me anyway - usually crashes in some way.) Rd232 (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
                  • es, subcats are no problem. But I thought you do not want to include this image in Category:Computer mouse (or a subcat) but rather in Category:Cats with computers. Did I misunderstand? --Saibo (Δ) 01:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
                    • Yes - look again at the red links in my comment above. Could have been clearer, perhaps, but I meant that Category:Computer mouse should have an appropriate subcategory - just like Category:Cats with computers is an appropriate subcategory for Category:Computers. You may object that there'd only be one image in that right now - but that's always a chicken-and-egg thing, since creating categories encourages people to use them to categorise, and to upload new content. Rd232 (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
                      • Ah, okay, thanks for the clarification. So you wanted to do the proposed phobia cat with just one image (underpopulated). Okay. Well, chicken and egg - nice metaphor - but it doesn't apply here. The eggs are the images in "Computer mouse" they can be there - they do not need a chicken (Nude whatever with computer mice). That is how our category system works. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Masturbation with electric toothbrushes. That is what's happening in the one image in this category, and besides being a more concise name, it is also a much more significant topic in its own right than this dubious intersection category (for those who are not aware, the electric toothbrush is a very common household female masturbation device). Dcoetzee (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree this is a better name. --99of9 (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree. Rd232 (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • We did have that category and people complained about that too. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - Any arguments to delete are not based on logic or policy, and to rename it to "masturbation" is to claim an action that cannot be determined unless there is animation or the rest. Dcoetzee's claim also brings in original research which has no basis in this discussion and is off topic, as is many of the rationales used to delete this category. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    • In case it wasn't obvious from just looking at it, which it really ought to be, the filename is File:Masturbating with a toothbrush.jpg, and the description reads: "A woman is masturbating with an electric toothbrush". I'm not making this stuff up. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Your condescension and incivility is completely inappropriate and you really should know better, especially when a file name is not proof nor a statement of fact, nor can it be proven that such a file name is adequate since "masturbation" is an action and not a position. I doubt you will care, as your inappropriate hostility throughout this page is disappointing and shows a trend that isn't healthy for this community. You are showing a complete disregard for basics which I have not seen from you in the past and I hope you address that. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
        • We have many images which depict actions (see Category:Running, Category:Horse riding, Category:Juggling, etc.). Although the complete action is not visible in the image, it is usually implied in a very clear way. The same is true with this image. Even if that's not what she's actually doing (say if she's just a photography model setting up a shot), this image could still be used to depict that type of masturbation because that's what she appears to be doing. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Your own example, "running" shows that your argument is preposterous because the act of running has a pose that is unique. Horse riding, for example, has a person on the back of a horse, and as long as there is one there it always is. "Masturbation", however, is not that certain and is not an act merely from "posing". You admit to original research in your last sentence, and the way your rhetoric and lack of arguments in the past few days suggest, I don't think you have a realistic case. You are doing yourself no favor and undermining and future credibility you may have by continuing with such poor examples and arguments. In the other thread, you even pretended that libraries can only put books in one category when anyone with the most basic understanding of them would know that is wrong. I think you might need to take some time off, sleep, not be as busy irl, or whatever it is causing you to make such strange arguments. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
            • Someone who reckons that an image of someone applying an electric toothbrush to their clitoris cannot be classed as a representation of masturbation with said item is not someone who should complain about people making "strange arguments". Rd232 (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
              • The act of masturbation turns the image into hard core pornography. When there are models involved, that is a major difference and has potential BLP ramifications. Masturbation is also strictly defined and is not merely posing with something. Your post above and your warning on my page are off base and should really stop. There is no rational or logical way to attribute a set of action and intent to this model and the ethical ramifications of doing such are why we have bans on such actions as disruptive - see prohibitions on BLP problems, personal rights, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
                • If the model were identifiable, it would be problematic to publicly claim they performed a sex act that they did not perform (if they in fact did not perform it but only posed for the shot). Such images should be described as "simulations" or "illustrations" of the act. In this case, though, I don't think there are any such ethical issues to consider - if you were to consider such issues, I would start with images described as depicting sex acts by readily identifiable persons, such as File:Fellation Tracy and Rick-1.jpg, File:ErosPyramide20090221_442.jpg. I would also appreciate you not attacking my state of mind - I am fully aware and have only made arguments which I believe to have merit, as I believe everyone here has done (notwithstanding my inexperience with the library system). Dcoetzee (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
"If the model were identifiable, it would be problematic to publicly claim they performed a sex act " - I don't think BLP says that you have the right to make claims about people's actions merely because they cannot be identified and are less likely to be damaged by it. There are more than enough clues and this person is most likely still alive. Claiming they are indulging in a hard core sexual act when at most that can be determined is a pose is rather baffling. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Commons does not have a "BLP" policy. I can't put it any more bluntly or clearly than that. It does have Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Rd232 (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
We all have a BLP policy, and if you think that Commons doesn't respect BLP then you do not understand our policies or standards here. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
                • "There is no rational or logical way to attribute a set of action and intent to this model..." - it is an "own work" image called File:Masturbating with a toothbrush.jpg, which the uploader gave the caption "masturbing with electric toothbrush" (sic)[3]. On what basis do you claim that the uploader did not intend for the image to represent "masturbating with a toothbrush"? It doesn't matter, for the purposes of what is being shown, whether the act is being documented or simulated if you can't tell the difference. Are you saying that you can? Similarly, the policies you so aggressively cite are irrelevant: COM:BLP and Commons:Personality rights both refer to the guideline Commons:Photographs of identifiable people - are you saying this person is identifiable? How? Rd232 (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
                  • The uploader is someone who cannot be trusted - you can see many "own work" with many different subjects and models, including random bits of Japanese and material that makes it clear that there is a lot of possible problems. Furthermore, an uploader's statements isn't proof enough of anything on Commons or on Wikimedia as a whole. And it does matter for every purpose to identify what a woman is doing. And BLP doesn't stop because a person is "unidentifiable" or we could easily take random pictures of the back of people's head and upload them as "racists" or other similar things. This is the basics of BLP and everyone should respect it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Kept - If we are to keep to the "principle of least astonishment", this category is a necessity because it is a naked person with an electric toothbrush, and where else would we put the image? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)