Template talk:Commons nudity

old talk (before template rename)

Why does it say "educational"? Isn't the reason why we don't need any more because they aren't very educational... AnonMoos (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

i'm sorry, but the above comment illustrates perfectly, how this template is NNPOV, & should be deleted. the template DOES NOT reflect WMC policy, & the opinion above perfectly represents bias in defining "educational"

(no offense intended @ AnonMoos)

Lx 121 (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever -- a properly labelled anatomical diagram might be highly educational, but allowing hundreds of similar images of random guys who shot low-quality photos of their penises with their cell-phones when drunk serves no legitimate purpose with respect to Wikimedia Commons that anybody has ever been able to convincingly articulate... AnonMoos (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

How does this template target the problem of low quality photos? Postdlf (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's just a semi-low-key reminder of what we don't need too much of in the relevant categories. To caution specific users, there's the other version of the template. AnonMoos (talk) 06:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Having "too much" of certain categories of images is a completely different issue than image quality. What other subjects don't we need too much of on Commons, and how is "too much" determined? Postdlf (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed at length last month on Commons Village Pump, and at Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Nopenis. If only a few people uploaded low-quality photos of their penises, then probably nothing much would be done about it, but when hundreds of redundant pointless photos started accumulating, then something has been done... AnonMoos (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

And has that accumulation slowed or stopped since this template notice was added to the category? I hope you agree at least that the template could be worded differently to better target that issue; right now it suggests that the subject matter itself is disfavored. Something like this: "Please note that low-quality, user-generated images of human penises may be deleted." Postdlf (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The guys who upload pictures shot with their cell-phones when drunk generally won't see the category warning label. It mainly seems to be a way of going on the record about the scope of the categories. AnonMoos (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems like the proper task for a guideline page. This template fails to explain what that scope is. This template also suggests that penis images are disfavored, particularly given the icon in the template. And finally, you don't even believe this template will be read by those who are likely to upload problematic images. I'm going to rewrite the template as I suggested above, to actually address the problem you claim this intended to address. Postdlf (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Rename template?

I reworded the template to focus more on the problem (submissions being low quality) and added a link to the official guideline on nudity. If the template was renamed, it could be used on non-penis categories also (even merged with Template:Nobreasts (category version), which still has a deletion notice on it from May.) Wikignome0529 (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Auto traslate

Hi all: Anyone can add the auto translate language system? Thanks. --Arcibel (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. As of 2015 this worked for me and "de". –Be..anyone (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Media

Hi, I've recently upgraded COM:NUDITY from (only) "images" to a wild mix of "files", "media", and "images or videos", assuming that audio only is no problem so far. If you agree so far please replace "images" by "files" or "media" in the tempate. You could also add "or videos" after "images". –Be..anyone (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)