Template talk:Nopenis

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

Genius[edit]

Pure genius. Megapixie (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. This discourage the user to contribute here. Telling that someone's work is low quality isn't nice. We have infinit space to store everything we want and we have 250 Wikipedias and it's sisters projects to use our files. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
There's absolutely no rule or policy which would require us to keep all legitimately-licensed images. We can keep miscellaneous images if we choose to do so -- but if we decide that images are low-quality, duplicative of other previously-uploaded images, or lacking in any legitimate quasi-educational use, then we can decide not to keep such images. See COMMONS:SCOPE... AnonMoos (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe nobody is going to upload something just to upload. If somebody put he works here, obviously he's going to use it somewhere in Wikimedia Foundation. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No, there have been examples to the contrary. Users with no other edits than to upload a photo of their own penis (sometimes a low-res camera phone photo) which never gets used in Wikimedia and the user never makes any other edits. Such users seem to be just using Commons as a place to store a personal photo of their genitalia, and it is such cases I believe this template is aimed at. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case I must agree too. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


Guys, what do you think about translate this template? I have noticed that we have user from everywhere uploading horrible pics just to show off. I think translated versions of this one could help more because not everybody understand english. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


This template is inappropriate, it violates wikimedia policy in intent & word. wiki is NOT CENSORED. as long as the images meet wmc basic criteria, there is no reason to delete them, the availability of other images on the same subject is irrelevant. All the pro-template comment on here are pretty much NNPOV. "horrible" is extremely subject. I am going to prod this; it's a bad template, that invites abuse, & provides a blank cheque justification for it.

Lx 121 (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No it's not! Though Commons accept pornographic files they must be really useful. There are people who only make an account to post pictures of their penis and nothing more. Such files are poor quality and have no use in any project because of it. The only intent is to show off. This kinda of thing is not accept here. Commons is not a porn site. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Then delete it based on the legitimate criteria that: 1. the file is of unacceptably low quality, and/or 2. that the file does not meet educational criteria. there is no common rule limiting the quantity of media allowed on a given topic, nor should there be. nobosy is seriously arguing that we have too many pictures of cats (or lolcats) or tree, or flowers, or buildings, or vehicles, or any other non-controversial subject matter. the only time people use the argument that "we already have tyoo much of this stuff" is when they find the subject matter offensive & want to use it as an excuse to delete. that is not a legitimate rational, wikimedia is NOT censored Lx 121 (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a very specific issue that requires a very specific solution. Users are not in their masses taking low quality images of doors and windows, uploading them and then disappearing again. ReformatMe (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Template is broken[edit]

On this talk page clicking the section edit takes you to the template's editpage. please fix Lx 121 (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The template is not used with {{subst:Nopenis}}. --Martin H. (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
p.s.:According to your answer to the user: Some people are uncomfortable with trash uploads without any value or any interest to the project and its quality - just uploading their own penis under the disguise of anonymity and saying: Yeah, my penis is on Wikipedia. --Martin H. (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
However it's meant to be used, it's not being used correctly in this case. it's broken, as used on that talkpage; the presumably experienced user who decided to "welcome" the contributor, used it incorrectly. re: p.s,:your ps is off topic, & i didn't intend to get personal in this convo, nor did i contact you to discuss the comment i made on that user's page, but ok if you really wanna get into it: the message violates policy: "don't bite the new users". it mis-represents policy: "censorship". there is no policy: "we have enough of this sort of thing". & it's being use arbitrarily as a way of discouraging people from contributing to wmc. your opinion on their motives violates: "assume good faith". for the record, there isn't very much material documenting condoms in use at all & if you consider such materials as "trash" i rather think that puts you into the category of prudish people who want to censor. i'm working on turning the categorization of this material into something professional, that can be taken seriously. what are you doing? Lx 121 (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Answering how you can fix problems: subst the template. And noticing other things: You said, that the informing user used this template because he dont like "naughty" things - no, its a quality concern. Im trapped myself writing this on the users talkpage with one edit substing the template and informing the uploader, that this was nothing about nudity or censorship but about quality! But that users talkpage would realy be the wrong place to talk about this template. --Martin H. (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
If the template is really about quality; why not remove the references to "no-penis" (& replace the erect-penis icon) & create a general-purpose quality template? there are plenty of other low-quality images being uploaded, so why not use an improved version of this template on the userpages of all users who upload low-quality images? Lx 121 (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Because photos of male genitalia is one particular easily identifiable field or area in which people seem to be prone to upload many low-quality redundant images, and also it's an area where, on the whole, it's not particularly controversial here to delete low-quality redundant images (taken by drunken guys snapshotting themselves with cell-phones, etc.). However, see User:Amada44/stuff for much the same thing with another type of image... This template is not a general-purpose "low-quality image" template, and doesn't attempt to be -- it serves one single restricted narrowly-defined purpose, and does it well. AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
therefore, it violates COMMONS IS NOT CENSORED! q.e.d. ergo & apropos: i win ;D Lx 121 (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Whatever, dude; please consult my remarks of a year ago above: "There's absolutely no rule or policy which would require us to keep all legitimately-licensed images. We can keep miscellaneous images if we choose to do so -- but if we decide that images are low-quality, duplicative of other previously-uploaded images, or lacking in any legitimate quasi-educational use, then we can decide not to keep such images. See COMMONS:SCOPE." -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Therefore, you want to create a "special rule" that lets you remove materials that you consider "dirty", using low-quality as an excuse, but you don't want to have that same quality standards rule applied to other media, that don't fit your definition of "dirty". "commons is not censored"; you're trying to cheat your way around that, by manipulating scope, but you don't want the same rules used for all files, only the ones that you want to get rid of. that is what i find objectionable in your position on this matter Lx 121 (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This template is not a rule. It is not censorship. It is not a cheat, nor an evaluation of what is "dirty". It is simply a notice to users that Commons is not an appropriate place to upload low resolution low quality photos of their own penis. It was created because there have been repeated examples of users doing exactly that, usually with no other edits or contributions to Commons. If, say, for some unknown reason there was a persistant slew of users whose only contribution was to upload out of focus low resolution photos of the finger nails of their pink finger, or common light-bulbs, or whatever other common object, some regulars here might find it useful to create a template regarding such contributions. As instead the problem has been with low-res penis self-pix, that's why the template address the issue which actually exists. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What is this[edit]

I am L & I am just wondering, does this mean that it has been determined that the images of male members has been declared exhaustive and as such, none shall ever be accepted in the future? This is a rational concept I can understand, and I am interested in knowing if we can extend this concept to other images which may now or at some point in the future be presented in excess. Like for example, on the female side of things, if the number of vags outnumbers the number of p'n's then we should have a template for that to post as well. Or even extending beyond sexuality, if you check out Category:Swords, there are 191 images!

Do we really need that many different pictures of swords? They're all pretty similar-looking and all serve roughly the same functions, even if some are differently shaped for other uses. I am afraid of what will happen if we allow an unlimited amount of blade artworks, it could reach over a thousand! It occurs to me that perhaps we are only concerned with an excessive amount of images when it relates to sexuality, yet have a far less critical and deletionist outlook when it comes to non-sexual images. I speak of those which won't provoke boners, of my sword category example. Sexuality aside, still it's a body & it just makes my blood boil to see how we treat it as if it's something that is going to kill somebody. Unlike edged weapons, erections are not known to cause death, nor are swords known to create life. Don't we have our priorities mixed up?

This is especially relevant when we discuss illustrations. We may look down upon what is lost when a photograph is deleted, after all, it takes just a second to snap a picture. But when it comes to drawings, artists have withstood pain to create many etchings over the years, yet, those hands will never hold anything to draw with anymore. All the artists are, if not dead, very old and may suffer from vision impairment, arthritis, or simply a lack of inspiration that caused them to create it in the first place. Swords stick around a lot time usually, someone can just take another photograph of them, but the painstaking illustration of the human body is a herculean effort and we may lose this piece of history forever if we continue to censor like this. Then there is no meaning to that life, nor once being understood.

So as I pray that people gain a more neutral perspective of the subject matter and numerical frequency of which they are censoring, I believe we can overcome these countless battlefields of argument and deletion undefeated in cooperation, without retreating. Ty (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


What is this? Garbage, just plain garbage. Nudity and explicit sex pictures have the same legitimacy of pictures on any other subject.--SummerWithMorons (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It's more about bad quality images. We don't need bad quality photos of penises that people upload because they can, we do need good quality images of penises, or of anything really. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The template is called nopenis and it is illustrated as a ban on hardons. If the genuine concern was about low quality, the template would be just about low quality.--SummerWithMorons (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not actually a "ban on hardons" -- low-quality redundant pictures of limp flaccid penises are just as unwanted. Please consult Image:What Commons Does Not Need.jpg ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

orthography[edit]

"von einem anderen benutzer als nicht ..." → "von einem anderen Benutzer als nicht ...". Greeting, --BlackIceNRW (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit Template:Nopenis/de... AnonMoos (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Added /no translation[edit]

Hello. I added a Norwegian translation (I can't be sure it is perfect), and it shows up in the template's page but not on the actual template. What to do? --HTMLCODER.exe (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You forgot to edit it here - I now did it for you. :-) (Plus I also did this.) Trijnsteltalk 12:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Swell, I wouldn't have figured it out right away. Vriendelijk bedankt :-) --HTMLCODER.exe (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)