Category talk:Videos of nudity

Copy of a discussion about this category (transfered from user talk pages) :
Being nude doesn't imply you have a sexual behaviour. Also, you don't need to be nude (at least not full monty) to have a sexual behaviour. So here again, please respect the logic in terms of category tree. Regards. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, as stated in this edit summary - Nudity is strongly associated with sexuality, this is a fact. Nude art (as the example you've given) is driven by a strong human sexual recognition. I personally don't think these two categories should be unrelated by means of tree-hierarchy. Orrlingtalk 12:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"Strongly" is a cultural/personal POV and that doesn't mean "always". Anne Geddes's nude babies photographs has nothing to do we sexuality, nor Muybridge films (who was mainly interested in anatomy and the way bodies move). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"Videos of anatomy"

I'm sorry for having to undo your edits again. The category you're attempting to insert has little if any relation with videos of nudity. Videos in this category are not anatomy-oriented but artistic/sexually-oriented. Regardz, Orrlingtalk 13:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well in that case it has to be included in "Videos of biology". Nudity is a behaviour but also a biological matter as far as bodies are concerned (see the category tree of Category:Nudity). Therefore videos of nudity should be considered as videos of a biological matter, whatever the goal of the author of the video is. The file by Muybridge, as I've already explained to you, is directly linked to biology since his goal was to show and analyse the body structure in movement. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Videos of biology > Videos of zoology > Videos of human behavior > this one cat. So maybe you can now be happy and whole again. I advise, as before, that you always check the cat-trees from/to which you're drawing, so you get a good broad view of the hierarchy/ies and perform thus sharper selections. :) Orrlingtalk 15:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well you see I think you are probably right for this one (even if I still think there would be no problem to have another entry through anatomy). But I also advise you, also as before, to be a little more modest. Your tendency of repeating that you're supposed to master in categorizing is somehow pretentious and troublesome. Accepting when you're wrong (like the fact that nudity doesn't always concern sexuality) would be far more valorising for you than claiming you always understand the principle of category trees better than anyone ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)