Commons talk:Nudity/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Do we need a nude photo pruning policy?

Since that's what everyone seems to really want to discuss, I've create a new section just for such a discussion. Please use the previous section only for discussing differences between the male and female guidelines. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we could do with pruning some of the lower res ones, and generally - we have lots of awful pictures on every subject, with much better ones available, but we keep the crap ones anyway which dilutes the ability to find good ones. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
As is seems to indicate here about "What Commons is not," though there seem to be a part--some other page--were pornograhic images are severely limited--but I'm still new here.Better than Hustler (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I assume you're refering to Commons:SCOPE#Censorship, which is not about "severely limiting" anything, but striking a balance between limiting abuse, cluttering up our categories with cruft, and opposing censorship (which is precisely the position I support). Kaldari (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think that it is a good idea to remove bad quality images. We need images of flowers, houses, penises, cars, tits and a lot of other things but we do not need bad images (low resolution, blurred images etc.).
In many cases penis images is nominated with the reason "Porno", "Offensive" or whatever. Perhaps we could find a good place to write that that "Porno" is not a good reason to delete images. It is better to use "Low resolution, blurred, not used, we have better images - example: File:Some penis.jpg." as a reason.".
I would prefer that we had a Pruning policy for every kind of material. Often images that get nominated with the reason "superseeded by..." gets closed as kept. If the deletion reason was "Low res image. Not used. We have a better version here: (link)" then I would not be surprised if the result was delete. --MGA73 (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
It should be nominated with a reference to the reasons given in Template:Nopenis... SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Supposedly "low quality" images should not be deleted if there is no higher quality alternative. The whole discussion is the usual prurient excuse to remove sexual content. And yes we need a "nude photo" policy, to protect them from unsophisticated people like Jimbo Wales. The "benevolent" dictator.--SummerWithMorons (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

2 relevant points:

1. if we are going to have a "pruning policy", then it should be a general policy, NOT specific to sexual content. the community has never reached anything like consensus on this kind of a restriction on sexual content; the community has also never reached anything like consensus on a "general pruning policy"... (i'm not sure if there's even been a significant draft proposal & vote on that).

2. the "nopenis" template is NOT an expression of official commons policy; & it was NEVER approved by a community vote. it represents the views only of the users who created & employ it. any valid arguements for deletion should be based on commons policy & guidelines. citing the template is just another shorthand way of failing to provide a proper rationale for deletion.

Lx 121 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism section

the notes re: vandalism are (considerably!) out of date.

a wide array of highly effective tools for blocking/cleaning up vandalism now exists, & most of the wm projects are using them actively.

it's not normal practice (anymore) to press for deletion of images "because they are being used by vandals"; that was always problematic re: not censored, & it's no longer necessary, with the tagging, protection, & blocking (etc.) tools now available (& a large enough pool of users/admins who are competent in using them).

the section should be re-drafted to reflect this.

Lx 121 (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

+1, and while at it please rename the section proposed guideline to history or similar, while there is no third proposal. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
-1, respectfully I have to disagree. "Not censored" is not an argument, because we donna delete all let's say penises, but only bad-quality ones or copyvios. Unfortunately there are users not interested in common's policy. The two issus of that sections are hence not wrong or "out of date". --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Age-based categorization

I have just created Template:Age group definitions for nudity, for use on category pages that contain nude images of specific age groups (e.g., Category:Nude girls), and/or contain subcategories that do the same (e.g., Category:Nude males). The classification system is adapted from the existing "Definitions" given in some categories, like Category:Girls, which in turn were based on discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/05/Category:Young women. Interested parties, please discuss at Template talk:Age group definitions for nudity. - dcljr (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I guess we're discussing this here.... - dcljr (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Renaming all the "Young women" categories to "Adolescent girls" categories was one of the stupidest bot-botcheries ever at Commons (and people are still dealing with the resultant nonsensicalities many months later), so not too sure why you would want to emulate that... AnonMoos (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
"Young women" categories was one of the stupidest category names one could invent. We need more precise categorisation; --Foroa (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Nevertheless, doing an indiscriminate mass-replace of "young women" to "adolescent girls" in all category names resulted in the false categorization of thousands of images, and was an extremely idiotic and unconstructive maneuver (not to mention bone-headed). Furthermore, the discussion was tucked away in a rather obscure and out-of-the-way place, and most people had no chance to comment, and no idea that any change was planned, until the bot-botchery deed was already done... AnonMoos (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Many (most?) nude images contain people of unknown age. Like most models, they have a variety of makeup and surgeries to alter their apparent age. Coarse granularity "young" versus "old" is one thing, but the finer you go the harder it is. Don't think this would be possible, much less worthwhile. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with AnonMoos and Dcoetzee. Please do not do this. -84user (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
My comment copied from Template talk:Age group definitions for nudity:

The main reason I created this template is because the children/adolescents/adults distinction that was discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/05/Category:Young women seemed to be a reasonable guideline to adopt, but doesn't seem to have been followed up on very much (at least, not consistently) since 2010. In particular, there still seem to be a significant number of images of women categorized as "girls", and the various "adolescent" categories are still woefully underpopulated. So I figured adding a prominent notice about recommended definitions to relevant categories (e.g., Category:Nude girls, Category:Nude females, etc.) might help to "encourage" these guidelines. Objections? Suggestions? - dcljr (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Now my reply to the other comments above...
  • AnonMoos, you seem to be objecting mainly to what was done over a year ago. If you think the category system was screwed up then, okay, let's figure out how to fix it now. What system are you actually advocating that we use? Surely not how things currently stand, since you lament the "nonsensicalities" that remain... Also, what "obscure" discussion are you talking about, if not the one at CFD (see link above)? Please point me to it.
  • Dcoetzee, I'm not sure what images you're referring to regarding the "makeup" and "surgery" issues. Sounds like you're talking about porn stars or something. Most images I've run across so far that I have put into "adolescent" categories are either old black and white photos from "human anatomy/development" type books or "nudist/naturist" type images. In any case, as with AnonMoos, I'm curious what system you're advocating instead.
  • 84user and others, do you realize that the age-based scheme in the template is almost identical to what has been displayed on dozens of category pages for over a year? How is using this template any worse than the current situation?
General comments: Isn't it better to have a (more) precise guideline that people can try to follow, with varying degrees of success, rather than using the almost meaningless term "young woman"? "Young" compared to what? "Woman" as in "of legal age", or not? The template gives precise definitions based on two major division points that are pretty clear, even if not always trivial to determine: puberty and (the most commonly used) age of majority. Yes, there will be borderline/ambiguous cases, but at least the template moves people toward using a single system, rather than everyone using their own interpretation of the term "young woman". Actually, this is assuming that people prefer using "young woman", which isn't even being used anymore. So, again: what's the harm in putting this new template on relevant category pages? Most of them have the same information already, anyway. If someone has a better system, please outline it here. - dcljr (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Young women/men" was a stupid thing too because it was hardly understandable and far too vague. I prefer the current solution even if it is not perfect (the question of age vs. physical appearance will be eternal). The solution could be to add some "Undefined age" cats for files where the appearance would lead to debates about the age (this is, for instance, the case of the files included in Category:Nudist adolescent girls for which many users have already removed the cat, claiming that none were adolescent - while I pesonally claim they're not more than 18 judging by their face and/or body). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Give your opinion and/or bring alternative solutions

Hi everyone. There's a discussion for which we would need your opinions. More than opinions, we need alternative and concrete solutions if you dislike the solution discussed there : Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/10/Category:Nude or partially nude people with electric toothbrushes.
Thanks in advance... and please be constructive, for the sake of the project ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed addition regarding categories

I suggest adding something in this direction:


Categorisation is essential to ensure that Commons content can be used effectively by end users. When it comes to nudity, we can consider the needs of four groups of users:

  1. Users who are looking for nudity (for the educational purposes of COM:SCOPE), and wish to easily find nudity, organised in a clear nudity category tree
  2. Users who are not looking for nudity, but might find it useful if they happen to find it
  3. Users who are not looking for nudity, and have no use for it if they happen to find it
  4. Users who are not looking for nudity, and may be put off from further using Commons to find their desired content, if they find nudity in locations it is entirely unexpected.[1]
  • Group 1 are best served by a nudity category tree which adequately categorises nudity content, allowing them to focus on it
  • Group 4 are best served by a nudity category tree which does not merely add nudity categories to nudity content, but where there is overlap with non-nudity category trees, separates them out. The principle of avoiding over-categorization will often achieve this objective anyway, if the needs of Group 1 are already served.
  • Group 3 is best served by the same approach as Group 4 - to them nudity is merely clutter in their search, in the same way as miscategorisation.
  • Group 2 is the only special case. They can be served by ensuring that the nudity category tree, where it overlaps with non-nudity category trees, is not firewalled off, but interlinked in the usual way (subcategories). If nudity may be of unexpected use to them, they can effectively investigate this through those subcategories.

In sum, nudity content which overlaps with non-nudity category trees should be categorised according to the twin principles of principle of least astonishment and principle of usefulness. For example, the average user would be surprised to find nudity in a "muppets" category, and it is highly unlikely the average user looking at the category is looking for nude images involving muppets. Therefore, such images should be separated out in a way which both minimises surprise and maximises ease of finding for those users actually looking for such pictures. Some form of nude subcategory, properly placed in the muppets category tree and in the nudity category tree, is an effective compromise that meets everyone's needs (with perhaps a partial exception of Group 4, who may to some extent object even to such subcategories).

  1. The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation explicitly elevated the "principle of least astonishment" as applied to categories of media files in its controversial content Board resolution (foundation:Resolution:Controversial content): "We urge the Commons community to continue to practice rigorous active curation of content, including applying appropriate categorization, removing media that does not meet existing policies and guidelines for inclusion, and actively commissioning media that is deemed needed but missing. We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement."

Rd232 (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Prop. add. re. cats: Discussion

I'd suggest replacing "Muppets" with something else, since I think we deleted that image. Category:Cooking, perhaps? Category:Nude cooking is a good example of the sort of categorization scheme you're aiming for. --Kramer Associates (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. Rd232 (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
My annoyance with the principle of least astonishment is the overcategorisation it does lead to. For instance, we have an image of someone masturbating with an electric toothbrush. This should be in the category electric toothbrushes, but that violates POLA, so it goes into "masturbating with electric toothbrushes". But that then clearly requires "masturbating with toothbrushes", followed by "masturbating with oral hygiene implements"... etc, 100 layers of category because we have a single image of someone masturbating with a toothbrush. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
This is not exactly "overcategorisation" by the Commons:Categories definition - let's not degrade the terms we have by loose usage. The problem you describe could be characterised as underpopulated categories (not enough images of people masturbating with these types of things), or else overly-specific categories from the point of view of the nudity category tree (preference would be to merge, if this didn't lose subcategories from the non-nudity category tree). This is a common enough problem; the only thing special about this case is the desire to create subcategories as soon as possible, rather than to perhaps wait for a decent amount of content to come along before making it. There's always a bit of chicken-and-egg thing here; having the categories early can encourage categorisation and even uploading, at the expense of having nearly-empty categories, perhaps for a long time. In this case, I think it's a trade-off worth having. Anyway, enough generality: one practical interim solution for this is to explicitly allow some overcategorisation within the nudity category tree, allowing categorisation in both the ideal category in terms of the intersection of the category trees (the very specific one), plus one more general category within the nudity tree. Overcategorisation is easily fixable by bot, so this deliberate partial exception to the rule can be pruned later according to some agreed logic (eg if the subcategory gets sufficiently large, remove the overcategorisation from images in it). Rd232 (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
If you create a subcategory with the name "nude" in it, the first thing users will be seeing and astonished by is a nudity subcategory.
The technical solution suggested by WMF to allow users deactivate content they don't want to view seems preferable. --  Docu  at 06:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Why not do both? We could have nudity subcats and a way to allow the user to hide nudity subcats from view. --Kramer Associates (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
That would be the most efficient (partly because it would leverage a system which also generates use for those looking for the content as well as those seeking to avoid it) and I argued to the WMF that if they do a filter it should use the category system; but it doesn't look like it will. Rd232 (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the nudity subcategory may still be astonishing in itself; but less astonishing than having the nude images randomly mixed in. That's why the proposal is a compromise. I suppose it's true that if the filter is ever actually done and works, it would also have to apply to the subcategories themselves, but that's not our problem, it's WMF's. Rd232 (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 0 I strongly oppose to add this proposal to this guideline for the following reasons - more reasons at Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/10/Category:Nude or partially nude people with electric toothbrushes (please read!) which was effectively a useless discussion now as rd232 did not mention it at all.
    • 1 First of all: I think you were pushing (kind of again) too fast with already preparing a finished text to be added. Discussion was a bit short and I think you are pushing the groups away from consensus by acting like this. Of course, I really do assume you meant it to be helpful.
    • 2 A strange grouping of users. And: we do not create whole category trees (see mattbuck 05:25, 1 December 2011 above) for single groups of users. 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... This does even scale worse than the whole category system itself (without phobia cats).
    • 3 Leave the principle of least astonishment where it belongs to and may be valid for: User interface design of software. For more arguments against this see the filter discussions. We are talking about categories - a method to find content (not to hide)! I dislike having an image filter and the same applies for those phobia categories - which are forcefully switched on for all users and creates a category mess. Possibly a duplication of the whole category tree. ...
    • 3b Sorry, if you want never be surprised (whereas this is simply meant as "new" here) with new facts and content you will stay dumb.
    • 4What the Wikimedia Foundation wants is totally irrelevant here when it comes to content.
    • 5It is simply insulting against humans to filter them out. Human are nothing bad - we, probably, are all humans. 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).
    • 6 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". That is bad for Commons' reputability and seriousness.
    • 7 Your solution for group 2 (which I think is the most natural group and not a small group) is: "effectively investigate this through those subcategories" No that is not a solution. Those subcats are hiding content from this group because they need a click more. They cannot view it with all the other equally relevant content.
    • 8"... highly unlikely the average user looking at the category is looking for nude images involving muppets. Therefore, such images should be separated out ..." quite a short reasoning, hm? Your felt unlikeliness of expecting doesn't tell us anything about the usefulness of the content if found. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I wasn't ignoring that category discussion, but I thought it best if someone summarised it here, and I didn't have time. I'm sorry if you think the proposed text is done too soon, but I was trying to summarise what is to a certain extent practice already, whilst also trying to summarise the most basic arguments. My reply to Mattbuck above gives a direction on how issues arising from categorisation can be addressed. By the way, I've seen your point 6 before, and I'm surprised you don't realise how weak it is; it cannot be better for Commons' reputation to mix pictures of nudity with jumping balls with pictures of jumping balls. Finally, a small part of the problem here is what you might call "category focus": a category for "jumping balls" can focus tightly on jumping balls (which often means literal closeups), or it can mean including every picture that has any kind of jumping ball in it. You cannot dismiss the "principle of least astonishment" as applying only to user interface design, because it applies also to categorisation. A completely different, offline example: I expect to be able to reach into my sock drawer without being confronted by a set of kitchen knives. There may be a perfectly good reason for my partner placing them there: it's a special set decorated with socks on the handle. But it's unexpected, and doubly useless: bad for my use of socks, and bad for my ability to find the knives when I want them. PS Another thought, on "filtering": the ideal solution would (perhaps) be not to have category pages at all, but to rely solely on search, Google-style, with options for user-choice filters on licensing, image size, etc etc. Category names would be converted into searchable (perhaps Boolean-combinable) tags. But that's not going to happen, so we need to substitute other forms of filtering to give the user control over what they want, which includes both things they want to find, and things they don't want to find. Your perspective seems to insist on denying users that control just because our technology is lacking, doesn't it? (I mean, you wouldn't deny users the ability to filter nudity out of a search on some kind of Thou Shalt See Nudity principle, would you?) Rd232 (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Group two is "Users who are not looking for nudity, but might find it useful if they happen to find it." I may be being generous in considering this group at all; I rather think it's a tiny group. If you need nudity for an educational purpose, you know it. Cheap thrills encountered while looking for something else don't count. You may think nudity is an arbitrary criterion for picture use, but the fact is in daily life there are few educational purposes for which a nude version of a picture is a substitute for a non-nude one. Either you need nudity (because that's the point) or you need non-nudity (because it would be a ridiculous intrusion which would make the image useless). Rd232 (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
          • 6 Bad for Commons' reputation if we "mix pictures of nudity with jumping balls with pictures of jumping balls." You are just making up facts which aren't. Why should it be bad? Where is the fact? Probably you cannot provide it. Why should be a censored Commons (although we claim it isn't) be better for Commons' reputation?
            Our categories should contain what they name. If you filter out (based on stupid WMF arguments) parts of the content they do not anymore show the content they should show. A part is missing. Accessible harder and treated like dirt. No, if we had a tag style search I would not like to disable filtering by some tags. What a strange idea to destroy a search engine. I just would like to see that what google does with its "safe search" (censorship by default). If someone excludes specific tags from a requested result list why shouldn't this be respected?! --Saibo (Δ) 21:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
            • 6 - mixing images... if you don't get it intuitively, or based on what I've already said, I don't know what else to say. As for "notcensored" - I used to get p*ssed off on en.wp with the abuse of that policy; there is enough actual censorship in the world that we should be ashamed to use the term for merely trying to give users better control over their user experience - both those who are looking for X and those who are looking for not-X. Well, at least you accept the principle of giving users control over their search when it's a tag style search; so can you explain better why that principle is suddenly null and void just because we're stuck with categories? Rd232 (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
              • Re @ your last question: Read my arguments again and you will find out why. --Saibo (Δ) 22:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
                • Do you mean Our categories should what they name.? Because this leaves out the crucial verb! Do categories have to include every image that remotely touches on their topic? Is that helpful to end users? I would put in the verb focus on: categories should focus on what they name, and leave secondary or intersecting uses to subcategories. I believe that for all topics, not just nudity. (Actually, given the emotional charge of discussing categorisation of nudity, it would be really helpful if we could come up with some unrelated example, because many of the "how do we categorise things usefully" issues are not specific to nudity at all.) Rd232 (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
                  • Should have been "Our categories should contain what they name." Sorry for this. By that I meant that not for arbitrary reasons some files should be pushed to subcategories without a neutral need (like "too many files on one category") for it.
                    Tips / guidelines on "what belongs in a cat" should be in Commons:Categories and the talk about it to the talk page there. In fact, I couldn't find some tips on this on this page by a quick(!) search. --Saibo (Δ) 23:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    • "6 Bad for Commons' reputation if we "mix pictures of nudity with jumping balls with pictures of jumping balls." You are just making up facts which aren't. Why should it be bad? Where is the fact? Probably you cannot provide it." Okay, I'm baffled by this comment by Saibo and I find it 100% impossible to assume good faith. I find it disturbing to say the least, and if I wasn't tired I would probably file a request for administrator intervention. There is really no way I could see this as legitimate and the rest is problematic. Anyone trying to argue that a bait and switch is appropriate, especially when it can deal with shocking and highly inappropriate images, is not really someone I would consider as having the best interests of this community in mind. Larry Sanger mentioned this exact kind of argument when he left as being part of what would lead to the downfall of the Wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I am so lucky that you are tired, hm? What is your problem? What do you mean by "bait and switch"? --Saibo (Δ) 16:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Separate the images - sexual or nude versions of a topic are rarely important to most topics and not what people would search for. Basically, you'd be misleading any user and providing them with items they would not want in a shocking manner. That is not what Commons is for. Either separate them or delete the images. There can be no other credible option. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I disagree strongly. Are you saying, for example, that Goya's Maja, vestida ('Clothed Maja') belongs in a completely different place than his Maja, desnuda ('Naked Maja') or that when I am photographing the annual Fremont, Seattle Summer Solstice Parade (watched by tens of thousands of people in Seattle, and in which about 10% of the marchers are naked, most of them body painted) the photos in which someone happens to be naked belong in an entirely different place than the rest of the parade? I agree that there are places where the principle of least astonishment clearly does call for a separate category: Félicien Rops erotic caricatures of Saint Teresa, for example, or a picture of someone cooking naked, not an expectation in a category about cooking. Still, as noted, there are places where the principle of least astonishment means that nude images are not a surprising inclusion in a broader category. - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Once you try to conflate paintings with photographic images of nude or sexualized non-notable individuals, you lost any ability to make an argument. Also, just because there is a parade with naked people doesn't mean it belongs in a category or even on Commons. Your premise is flawed and the comments above are the exact kind that I strongly believe need to be prevented from being enacted if we are ever going to be a working, serious project. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
        • That's not really a helpful response. You have the germ of a point, but you're not actually making it. Rd232 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Commons seems to me to be a "working, serious project" already. --Kramer Associates (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
            • Not if it is responsible for quite a lot of jokes about having "too many white penises", being "pornopedia", blacklisted by many different school groups, etc. Having thousands of hard core and soft core pornographic images that would never be used except on a user page makes us look really bad and harms the legitimate pictures. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
              • If we aren't blacklisted by some schools, then we aren't doing the job of being a source of universal knowledge. Universal knowledge includes "dangerous" knowledge as well as safe.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
              • Ottava, so you do propose self-censorship to escape censorship? A great idea. COM:NOTCENSORED --Saibo (Δ) 16:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
                • Some of these comments I really can't help wonder if people are, offline, going into shops and pulling porn mags off top shelves and mixing them in with the comics section, on the grounds that the porn mags contain some comic strips and drawing any distinction between the two is "censorship". Rd232 (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
            • "If we aren't blacklisted by some schools, then we aren't doing the job of being a source of universal knowledge." The two parts of this sentence conflict. We are also not a source of "universal knowledge" but of cited, encyclopedic information that is neutral, not libellous, not made up, not plagiarized, etc. We have standards and those are something that should not be undermined by some people who want to defend the undefendable pictures put in undefendable places. Any claim about "censorship" is wrong, unfounded, and completely inappropriate. By having the ability to delete, not hosting copyrighted information, etc., we already commit censorship so any argument that we should not regulate ourselves to standards because of using the word as if it is shocking or bad is just silly. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
              • We will not edit Wikipedia to be acceptable to all schools; we will not lie about evolution, history of various religions and birth control in ways that various schools will demand, and even if we would, there is no one lie they will all accept.
              • We have standards. Part of the reason this debate goes on is because the majority standards of the editors clash with your standards. If you don't understand what we mean by "Commons is not censored", I'm not going to try to explain it to you, but that is a standard that is well supported by the majority of editors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
                • "We will not edit Wikipedia to be acceptable to all schools" Then you are in direct conflict with the educational mission of this project and I no longer have confidence in your ability to participate here. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
      • There are edge cases where astonishment is not the usual response from people familiar with the subject, but may be from people unfamiliar with it. The obvious conclusion from that is part of drawing a balance here may be adding a clarificatory note, for example to a category about the Seattle Summer Solstice Parade. That way someone coming across it who was just looking for "parade" pictures and didn't have a clue would have some sense of fair warning. And I think this line of thinking of a clarificatory note on a category may be helpful more generally: if putting one seems a sensible thing to do, then there's a fair chance that nudity may be OK within it. If putting a note seems utterly ridiculous ("warning: this category about electric toothbrushes may contain images of nudity") then that's a good sign that a subcategory should be employed. Rd232 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Oh yes, of course: Caution: this category may contain images and looking over 10h at all the many images can lead to serious health damage! like Caution: Coffee is hot. I love that US bullshit. --Saibo (Δ) 21:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Cor blimey mate, did you just take me for a Yank? Made me spill my tea, you did an' all! And it was hot! :P Rd232 (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
          • the "warning" element is just a minor variation on the theme of having helpful category descriptions. On some level you're trying to insist that there is no difference at all between nude pictures and non-nude, whilst at the same time treating the distinction differently than any other distinction (eg knives and forks: this category is mostly knives but includes some images with a mixture of cutlery is useful information of an equivalent sort). Rd232 (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
            • I think nobody is against describing the nature of the Seattle Summer Solstice Parade on the category page. You do not need a warning sign (nor a policy change) for that. --LPfi (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify: Ottava Rima, are you agreeing or disagreeing with the proposal? --Kramer Associates (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Sounds like a sensible proposal. --JN466 17:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I share concerns about needing to maintain a parallel category tree all the way up. Powers (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I made the suggestion above that it doesn't need to be parallel all the way up, if we decide on an explicit and limited overcategorisation rule exception: allow a file to be categorised in the specific nudity subcategory (eg Category:Nude people with electric toothbrushes), and also in whatever is the most general nudity category that seems helpful (eg Category:Nude people with household objects), even though the subcategory is contained within it. In exchange, leave out all the intermediate categories which would just be matroshkas for the specific nudity subcategory (eg Category:Nude people with toothbrushes, Category:Nude people with oral implements, etc), at least until much more content in that area arrives over time. Rd232 (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
      • But if the categories aren't parallel all the way up, it makes the images harder to find. For instance, someone looking for oral implements in general would not see that there are pictures of nude people with oral implements without drilling down to the toothbrushes category. Powers (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
        • "Without drilling down into to the toothbrushes category..." er, no. People looking for nude people with oral implements will look at (i) category:oral implements tree and (ii) category:nude people with... tree. We do not need to pretend that people are capable of only looking at one category when they are thinking about the intersection of two concepts, and therefore force ourselves to squash everything into the one where the vast majority of users will have no use for it, for fear that some poor thrillseeker, too busy coming up with a reason why looking at people masturbating with oral implements is "educational", can't find the time to look in the more obvious place for such images. Rd232 (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Yes, you certainly can make such concerns sound ridiculous when we're talking about that particular category intersection. It's a shame that such an edge case is the one that was selected as the ur-example in this discussion, as it's really not typical. Powers (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We have had variants of this discussion. Just one note: what do you think of the category "Nude children playing". If the images are in Category:Children playing the images are as innocent as they are. I might very well use an image with some nude children in an article on the topic. On the other hand the nude category could develop into a disaster. --LPfi (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Add me, caring for folks with one of the two pathological (pro or con) interests in nudity on the level of categories only makes it worse. Having said this my own pathological interest in this topic does not cover to find the known toothbrush example in an ordinary toothbrush category. I also do not like contrived category trees, nude or otherwise, ending up with almost empty sub-sub-sub-categories. How about a neutral Category:Odd (ab)uses of common tools or similar? –Be..anyone (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm starting to see why the WMF decided to force the image filter (as far as they can): there is little sign of the community being able to agree to anything resembling an acceptable compromise. A substantial and highly vocal minority seems to insist that nudity and sexual content cannot be given the special treatment which current social customs in every major modern society require. Personally, I think their solution to the issue is wrong, but I'm starting to understand their point of view - certainly better than I understand those who insist that there is no issue. (And FWIW I say this as someone whose family is very comfortable with household nudity, in private; and as someone who is no stranger to the pleasures of images of sexual content.) Rd232 (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Since you mention "highly vocal minority" another not unimportant note: here isn't a discussion of the community but instead of the English speaking community (and currently: of the highly active and well informed sub-community). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Language barriers just make it harder to reach agreement; this doesn't undermine my basic point, but support it. Also, regardless of what % of what community supports any given approach, we're only talking about active Wikimedians participating in discussions; there are many more end users affected whose concerns are not heard directly. Rd232 (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The poll on the image filter showed that all but a small minority is opposed to the images. It just happens that the small minority is more vocal in a manner that leads to the majority being ignored, shouted down, or having our policies completely violated. It is a shameful situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The "poll on the image filter" was nothing more than badly designed. And it is even more wrong to extract information from it which isn't in. --Saibo (Δ) 17:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
        • "was nothing more than badly designed." This is a case of your personal opinion making you completely unable to view this site and the rest of the community in an objective manner. You wont even recognize that a lot of people have serious issue with the porn that has no legitimate reason to be uploaded, just sits there, and is mostly done by white European male exhibitionists without any legitimate contribution to an encyclopedia or anything that can be called "educational" without laughter or sarcasm. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
          • So logical, and useful - thanks for this comment and that I do not need to continue to "talk" with you. --Saibo (Δ) 22:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
            • Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Your statements on any Commons related topic became null and void when you blatant ignored a survey that shows the vast majority of users here completely disagree with you on every single thing related to this topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The poll on the image filter says nothing of the sort. I stood for the image filter because it was not about nudity, because it was not about forcing Ottava Rima's parochial view of good and bad images down everyone's throat.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
        • "The poll on the image filter says nothing of the sort" The poll was very clear, and your statements are akin to claiming that the sky is red. Your denial of what is really obvious is frightening. Your rhetoric on the matter is also incredibly incivil, inappropriate, and shows that you are not participating here for the good of the project. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

I support the idea in general, but the proposed wording is way too verbose (and doesn't account for non-surprising nudity like classical sculptures). How about just:

Nude images should generally be kept in categories where they won't surprise the user. For example, a photograph of a woman masturbating with a cucumber should be put in Category:Sexual penetrative use of cucumbers rather than Category:Cucumbers.

Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Better than the original proposal, thanks. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Fotothek df roe-neg 0006757 005 Ein Kleinkind wird einer Licht- oder Wärmebestra.jpg
As I already mentioned above, the issue being addressed here is offensiveness, not nudity, making this proposal both too narrow and too broad. Many nude images are simply not offensive to most people (for example, consider File:Fotothek df roe-neg 0006757 005 Ein Kleinkind wird einer Licht- oder Wärmebestra.jpg, shown right). This image is in Category:Photographs by Roger and Renate Rössing from 1954. Should it be in Category:Photographs by Roger and Renate Rössing from 1954 including nudity? This is a textbook case of over-the-top overcategorization. Additionally, many non-nude images are widely considered offensive or at least shocking. This is why I think if there is to be a policy about subcategorization, it should be at Commons talk:Categories, not here. Of course a better long-term solution to the whole thing is users choosing what they want filtered, rather than engaging in deliberate overcategorization, but that doesn't exist yet which is why I would (temporarily) support a more targeted proposal. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Since offensiveness is often related to nudity, I think it's appropriate for us to give some guidance here. I'm not trying to create any policies. I'm just trying to give people some guidance on how to categorize nude images (since this issue seems to come up a lot). And I'm totally in agreement with your example. I don't think any reasonable person would find such an image to be shocking, so there's no reason to hide it in a subcategory. That's the reason I specifically used the criteria of surprise, not nudity by itself. My proposal doesn't say that all nude images should be in subcategories. It says they should be in subcategories if they are surprising otherwise. Whether or not there should be a policy about categorizing offensive images in general is another issue in my opinion. I just want to add some common sense guidance here in cases where the inclusion of nude images in a category is surprising or offensive. Kaldari (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Dcoetzee is incorrect. It is not about "offensiveness". It is about lying and misleading. Category labels should conform to people's expectations. This is how libraries sort items. You would not have, say, a book about a murderer in a section for butchering even though someone based on the same logic of putting a woman using a toothbrush as a sexual aid in that category would put it as such. Talking about filtering is off base and off topic in this discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
A library book can only be in one category, so it's natural to put it in the most important or relevant one. An image can be in many categories, and so less prominent elements are frequently and usefully used to categorize them. For example, File:Mary of Modena by William Wissig.png is in Category:1680s fashion, a useful category, although the primary subject is of course Mary of Modena. An image that prominently features toothbrushes can accurately be categorized under Category:Toothbrushes (unlike your "butcher" example), even though the toothbrush may not be the main focus in the scene. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
"A library book can only be in one category" I don't think you understand how the card catalog system worked or what "keywords" are. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
True enough, I know nothing about those. I've struck the misinformed comment, but the rest stands. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - this is much, much better than my original proposal - thanks! I think further discussion should take that as a starting point (eg I'd add my footnote to the Board resolution). Unfortunately, since the objections are almost entirely independent of the wording, this big improvement may not make much difference. Rd232 (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  • And who chooses what's surprising? You, Kaldari? The community (which is very mixed on commons)? Administrators? The reader? And how? Based on a majority vote? I see lots of long discussions about "Will this image be considered surprising?". Consider a prudish user never heard of Michelangelo and the work created by him, the David. Now snapped a phrase and entered it to Commons. *Surprising*
  • Generally, of course, categorization should make sense. E.g. categorizing a photo focused on naked woman, holding a very little toy, the image should not be categorized to the specific toy category, instead the photo should be in category:naked women with toys or similar. But this is common sense for me. Just a question of good categorization with no need for an extra policy. Maybe a small addition (one sentence) to Commons:Categories.

To conclude, splitting Category:Michelangelo's David into Category:Michelangelo's David with surprising elements is not worth the effort and just wrong. -- RE rillke questions? 10:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Why does everyone think this has something to do with a policy? Commons:Nudity is a guideline, i.e. it offers guidance, i.e. suggestions. The argument that we can't offer any advice that is subjective is ridiculous. It's just a guideline. If people create absurd categories, you're free to ignore whatever is written here and delete the category. The act of categorizing images is usually subjective anyway. And regarding the lack of definition, Commons:Nudity already uses the terms "shock value" and "shocking", which aren't defined. How about I change "surprising" to "shocking"? Is that any better? At least then we're consistent. Kaldari (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The reason for this is that we have a lot of guidelines that are treated like policies when it comes to disputes. And I fear not everyone will agree with me that Category:Michelangelo's David with surprising elements or similar is absurd. I believe there will be people arguing with me about, if I would delete such a category, if something is guiding to create such categories. -- RE rillke questions? 10:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The community can evolve more detailed guidance on what constitutes "surprising" in categorisation generally, through the usual consensus means. If we had Commons:Category structure as a guideline, then this would be the place to elaborate guidance on this. The cucumber/toothbrush examples that have caused the most recent debate would easily be covered by
Categories named for objects should focus on the object itself. Uses of the object should be placed into one or more subcategories.
Rd232 (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
For File:Felicia_Fox_2.jpg mentioned in Erotic image with a Muppet I've simply removed the nonsense Category:Benches after checking its sub-categories. This image is actually (my POV) spam and no nudity or porn with numerous more or less fitting categories remaining. Revert me if you must... ;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
...but Category:Benches is actually an example of following my proposal already, since it has Category:People on benches. Rd232 (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, with no remaining category I'd have used that, but while everybody here sees what is surprising nudity (or not) I tend to see what is spam (or not): This image of an alleged porn-star already is in lots of categories, it doesn't need any benches — the focus of the image is anyway not the bench. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Infrogmation added Category:People on benches, so now you have a real example again, i.e., I consider that category as inappropriate, and the category zoo for this image as spam. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't realized I was treading into a mine field! I've read the discussion twice and have to say I'm rather at a loss as to understand what is "inappropriate" -- the photo shows a person on a bench, does it not? A person on a bench does not stop being a person on a bench, even if she has also worked in pornographic films. Perhaps there is some implication that has not been clearly stated? Care to take another stab at explaining what the problem is? Thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, why is this being discussed in Nudity? Has nudity been so grossly misunderstood as to somehow include "skimpy outfits or clothing that some people might consider sexy"? Infrogmation (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
She is effectively topless; the only thing covering her nipples is her hair, and her areola are clearly visible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not really a mine-field, somebody mentioned this example in the "erotic muppet" village pump thread. It also isn't nude as far as I'm concerned, but I fear it's spam or at least not really about benches with ot without people. And more interesting than the Solstice cyclists for the purpose of this discussion. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -Generally Kaldari's proposal is better.

  • The wording needs to be more focussed on Nudity and not Sexual acts occurring while nude. The bananas, toothbrush and cucumber example needs to be changed into something more borderline. An image (not-uploaded) 'Girls reading Harry Potter on French naturist beach' which is an obvious candidate for Cat:Nude Adolescent girls reading- and not Cat:Harry Potter or Cat:Reading-- which takes away the focus on Sexual Acts.
  • Commons:Nudity as a page need serious work. One image displaying - a couple of clothed amateur photographers- who demonstrate no appreciation for lighting, focal length or composition. Really. A stub with no content, if it is a policy where is the section called ==Policy==. When you have read it, what do you then know that helps you upload or police a file? Details of the category-tree we are discussing? Nowhere? Even a synopsis of the comments on the talk page would make it more useful. It could be said I was overly astonished at its contents!
  • The Principle of least astonishment link needs to be disamb'ed, as it way off focus to our discussion.--ClemRutter (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Some test cases

I would be genuinely interested on how people see this all applying to, for example, File:Animal locomotion. Plate 127 (Boston Public Library).jpg (a 19th century motion study that shows an unclothed man), File:Espana1930majadesnuda10ptsscott399.jpg (postage stamp of Goya's "Naked Maja"), File:Solstice Cyclist 1995.jpg (mine: shot of bicyclist at Fremont Solstice parade makes it clear the man's genitalia are exposed, but you can't see them), and File:Fremont Solstice Parade 2010 - 156.jpg (slightly more explicit than the preceding, similar subject, female). I'd be glad to see another half dozen test cases raising different issues. Because any effort to discuss this in the abstract is likely to lead to talking at cross purposes. Any meaningful guidance that can be applied consistently is going to require that we have a set of cases like this to indicate what does and does not need special handling. - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I see no problem at all with these images and their categories. It could be more interesting if the nekkid cyclists are mixed with other cyclists.  IOW, the solstice cyclists already are a special category, and it's not contrived like nude or partially nude people with electric toothbrushes. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the categorization of all of those files seems fine. For example, the last file is placed in Category:Nude women with sunglasses rather than Category:Sunglasses, which is helpful. I don't object to it also being in Category:Solstice Cyclists in 2010 as people should expect some nudity there, i.e. it is not surprising. The main problem is when we have actual porn in run-of-the-mill categories, sometimes even dominating such categories. This is embarrassing to Commons, in my opinion, as it makes it hard for people to take seriously that we are supposed to be an educational resource, and not just a random archive of files. Kaldari (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

How about several images in Category:String instruments in art, most notably File:Anders Zorn - Ateljéidyll.jpg and File:French-postcard-no-series Two-women Pseudo-classical kithara.jpg? File:Sauna Jen 3.jpg in Category:People with snow (is nudity in Category:Saunas in Jesenice unsurprising?). File:1888 Gymnastics as Physical Education in Schools.jpg (would it change if those were boys? are some of them boys?)? --Kramer Associates (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are degrees. So " art" gives you a domain where nudity is more acceptable; but it's still somewhat surprising to find it in a category on string instruments. The images in Category:Saunas in Jesenice are miscategorised - you can barely see the structure which is supposed to be the subject of the category. Should be in a category with "people having a sauna" or something. "Category:People with snow" is somewhat surprising to have nudity in it, and a nudity subcategory of that would probably find plenty of content fairly quickly (it's an interesting juxtaposition in a way that somebody getting topless on a beach isn't). Rd232 (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I would never find nudity in an "art" category surprising. Same for saunas. The non-sexual child nudity has already been discussed (it doesn't seem to be a significant issue as long as it is clearly non-sexual). The Category:People with snow example is a good test case. My personal opinion is that the File:Sauna Jen 3.jpg file is probably OK there as it isn't focused on the nudity or any sexual aspects, it's just a photo of people leaving a sauna in the winter. I could imagine it being useful to illustrate an article on Naturism in Scandinavia or something. I find files like File:Felicia Fox 2.jpg much more surprising there. It's just porn and has virtually nothing to do with how people interact with snow. The only thing it was ever meant to illustrate was Felicia Fox's crotch (to make money, not to illustrate anatomy). Everything else in that photo is incidental. Kaldari (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that "sauna" is a noun, and Category:Saunas is part of Category:Bathing structures and Category:Architectural elements. People in saunas is distinct. It's bad categorisation to pretend that people are architechtural elements; every "people in saunas" image should be in the Category:People in saunas tree, not in the main Saunas tree. That would fairly effectively preclude surprise, by being accurate (and useful). Rd232 (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
You're probably right, although I would consider accurate categorization of nude images to be a separate (but related) issue from "surprising" categorization of nude images. There is also the issue of category "spam", i.e. where porn (or other commercially-related images) are included in as many categories as possible even if only barely related. Kaldari (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
"I would never find nudity in an "art" category surprising. " I find that unbelievable. I've taken many art history classes and nude images anywhere are very rare, especially depending on the time period and style. Also, classes on the subject tend to warn people about nudity and art classes in which you learn art tend to warn people if they will have nude models. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
In terms of a class with nude models (who are actual, present human beings), perhaps. But the art produced? Have you ever heard of an art museum warning that some of the pictures in the collection are nudes? Is anyone warned away from the sculptural nudes found on public display in many European, American, and doubtless some other, cities? I've heard of museums having warnings about highly sexualized imagery (Mapplethorpe, for example, or Carolee Schneemann) or material that significant numbers of people have found disturbing (Henry Darger, for example) but not for mere nudity. I'm unaware of any major museum in the world that separates nudes in art from other work, though there could be one I don't know. Again, I do think there is some imagery that deserves to be separated off, but it's because it is highly sexual, or portrays great violence, or other similar criteria, not because someone happens not to be wearing clothes. I do think the Felicia Fox example given above probably does not belong in a general category about people with snow, because it is pretty obviously intended as pornographic, and that is a surprising thing to find in a presumably innocuous category. - Jmabel ! talk 04:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
"warning that some of the pictures in the collection are nudes?" Yes, I have. Many art museums in the US have tours with children ranging in various ages, and they warn before hand what kind of content can be seen. Also, many periods and styles lack nudes in general. For instance, you are likely to find nudes in a Pre-Raphaelite exhibit but probably not a Nazarene exhibit, even though they are closely related. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This sounds ridiculous. There will always be surprising images somewhere and it would look really stupid to have extra categories like Category:Nude or partially nude depictions of Muhammad with electric toothbrushes with subcategories Category:Depictions of Muhammad with electric toothbrushes, Category:Nude or partially nude depictions of people with electric toothbrushes and Category:Nude or partially nude depictions of Muhammad with toothbrushes. Due to COM:NOTCENSORED, images which may look disgusting to some people have to be stored here. Categorising images based on whether they may be seen as disgusting (is a picture of an adult woman without burqa disgusting?) would create too many, too messy and too surprising categories. There are already many categories which look really silly (Category:Color images, anyone?) and we really don't need more of them. If you don't want to see any unwanted pictures, you could write your own script which automatically hides images if they appear in Category:Nude or partially nude people with electric toothbrushes, Category:Depictions of Muhammad or any subcategories to those categories. I suspect that this is exactly what the proposed image filter will do. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Surprise is the motor for knowledge and creativity. The principal of least astonishment may work for articles in a way that you wont find a pear in an apple article. But not in the way that you wouldn't find a green and red apple inside the apple article. This nudity nonsense only leads brings us nowhere and calling anything pornography is the devil in the detail. I'm somehow sick to follow up this aggressive discussions that are meant to implement value judgment based on personal preferences. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 00:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.