Commons talk:Nudity/Archive 3

Request for Comment - Making changes to search results

• Commons:Requests for comment/improving search

Please see discussion at Commons:Requests for comment/improving search. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Photos to illustrate the guideline?

On the one hand they were there for some time now, on the other hand I am not entirely sure about photos in a guideline in general. Here are the points given by the reverters:

• removing pictures; irrelevant to the guidelines & unprofessional on an official page (Lx 121)
• an image is worth a thousand words (Tm)

I can see the validity of both arguments while I disagree with irrelevant in the first one and the second one needs the addition of the crucial caption. Please find a solution. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 19:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree that this edit war is highly inappropriate. Matters of contention should be discussed here on the talk page. (I lean towards keeping the image, as it reenforces key points in a graphic and lighthearted way, but am open to persuasion if someone wishes to put forth an explanation as to why the page would be improved by the removal of the image.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree; a little bit of lightheartedness is not bad, and can reenforce the point.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought the "drop your pants" images were quite funny and a good way to get the message across. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

How long have those pictures been seen on that page? Did Lx try to find consens on the dicussion page? --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment The images were removed by Lx 121 who is not the same as LX. Yikrazuul's comment suggests that he might have mixed up the users.

Personally, I don't see any problem with having the images here, but it would not matter much if they were removed. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• What about moving them into an own section at the bottom of the page (The guideline in images or To conclude the guideline or The guideline in short)? When I first translated this page to de, I was also confused by the two photos and thought it is unprofessional and not required. But when sometimes working on Special:NewFiles, I think they show a very valid point. -- RE rillke questions? 21:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• IMO they are good images to illustrate the philosophy of the guideline about the kind of files that is needed, but i suggest to move them to Commons:Nudity#New_uploads section. --Yoggysot (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

images used on guidelines should illustrate or instruct the contents of the text; this pictues does NEITHER; it is merely cute & funny & emphasizes the "nopenis" viewpoint. the caption is particularly unprofessional, & does not reflect anything stated in the actual text of the guideline.

if we allow this standard of childishness on a "serious" community guidline in this case, then we allow the same "standard" of irrelevance & nnpov "jokes" on all guidelines. think about where that takes us, on some of the other contentious/controversial policies...

(& for the record neither the image, NOR the accompanying caption, were a part of this guideline when it was approved by the community, nor was there any comparable illustration included)

Lx 121 (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not childish, it's irreverent. A little bit of irreverence can help lighten the mood around an otherwise contentious topic. Powers (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

relevance standard

just to be perfectly clear, i do not object to the use of illustration on guideline & policy pages; i object to the inclusion of irrelevant images.

this photo does not illustrate anything in the text:

it does not show a useful vs non-useful upload.

it does not show "educational use"

it does not illustrate any (non-existent) commons policy on "quantity limits"

it's a jokey, dumb photo + caption, which serves the "nopenis" pov; which has NEVER been approved as a standard by community concensus.

& as a final point, the caption DOES NOT reflect the contents of the guideline text.

there is not, nor has there ever been, any approved entry in the guideline "commons does not need you to drop your pants"; the inclusion of the line is yet another case of "nopenis" creep...

Lx 121 (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we have consensus on the issue expressed in that photo. It certainly illustrates a non-useful upload, and it matches the basic concept in "New uploads". There's arguments about how much we need a new well-lit well-framed in focus shot of genitalia, but there seems to be certain uploaders who just want to show off their junk, and we don't need to them to do what's illustrated in the photos.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And therefore I dared to move the images down. Do we need 2 of them? I think a singe one is enough. -- RE rillke questions? 11:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

text revisions reverted by user:yikrazul

hello world:

i recently spent a couple of hours doing text revisions on this page; mostly copy-edits, clarifications & improved explanations, link adjustments & tidying. i did remove some items of "mission-creep" & statements unsupported by any other commons rules, that did not appear to be in the text when this guideline was adopted, or last underwent any major community-wide discussion.

this part of the work amounted to removing or revising <10 lines of the text, out of a MUCH larger body of copyediting.

user:yikrazul however, decided to erase ALL my work, without showing any consideration for the merits of the individual changes. his justification for doing so amounted to descibing the revisions as "weird" without any elabouration. he also invited me to "discuss it on the talk page", but neglected to create an entry to explain his assessment of "weird".

in fairness & full disclose, yik & i have an intermittent history of disagreements, & there have been other simillar clashes in the (somewhat distant) past.

in this case i feel that his action was inappropriate, in that he clearly made no effort to consider the actual changes, & simply erase it all, with a dismissive & unenlightening comment.

i invite discussion, particularly of the text revisions; my interest in discussing interactions with yikrazul is somewhat less important.

Lx 121 (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not true. And your personal feelings for me are irrelevant.

You have inserted your own POV. As this is a project page, you need to disuss changes with the community (i.e. here) first. Not the other way round. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

hello for the third time (in this round) yik; thank-you for joining that mass-deletion debate, nominating the file that i was using to demonstrate a poor-quality genital shot for deletion, AND reverting all of my edits on this guideline for the second time. clearly, your personal feelings towards me are completely irrelevant to any of this activity.

you have now erased all of my work on this guideline twice without any consideration of the merits of any of the text-revisions" & you have done so without articulating any relevant reasoning beyond "you don't like it".

'also this talk section has been up for several days, & you & i are the only people in the discussion so far; & you are the only person who has objected to the changes. i take that as an indication that the other people here do not seem to share your opinions.

i invite you to constructively discuss your concerns.

Lx 121 (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You should not make major changes to a policy wiuthout first gaining consensus for the changes. If you wish to insert these changes to the policy, I think that you should first gain consensus for the changes in a request for comments. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

hello; respectfully  Disagree with your characterization of "major changes"; these are minor revisions in the text, often undertaken simply for clarity. there were other edits for grammar, style, ordering, to provide improved links, & to illustrate the subject under discussion. also to remove elements of "mission creep" that have been added to this guideline since the last major discussion. if you are concerned about undue changes, perhaps we should revert the entire text to the last draft that had community consensus?. if you would orefere not to revert the text all the way back, & start from ther, please specify which changes you consider to be "major"? so that the rest of the work can be restored. Lx 121 (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

When you make a lot of changes you risk people going "huh? wait!" even if those changes have relatively little effect on the substance. I suggest you explain the changes here on the talk page, breaking the changes down by section. Rd232 (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

+1. Especially if this user wants to insinuate some strange POV about "sets of images". This is not just "grammer" or "ordering". In addition, if that were just "minor" changes, than why is User Lx 121 making such a big fuzz about it? --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The shortcut COM:PENIS

triggers abuse filter when used by new users. I suggest removing or hiding for non-autopatrolled users. -- RE rillke questions? 11:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's worth creating MediaWiki:Group-autoconfirmed.css with the same approach as MediaWiki:Group-sysop.css just for this. Maybe we should remove it (in favour of a better shortcut). Or maybe it's not really a problem... How many new users cite that section? Rd232 (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't know. Just got an abuse-report. It is Special:AbuseFilter/56; 200 edits are required to be allowed to say COM:PENIS. -- RE rillke questions? 16:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm, well we'd better replace it with something else then. Rd232 (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting: you need to have at least 200 edits in order to write "SIGH" in capital letters in Swedish. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well there is no COM:SIGH... but there may be other shortcuts that have that problem because of inter-language issues. Rd232 (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't we just edit the filter to exclude "PENIS" when preceded by "COM:"? Powers (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Translate to ES

Hi, i would like to translate the article to spanish, cause in wiki there is a discussion of this kind of images. ¿Can i create a page to start translation? obviously, i will be neutral. Please help --KundaliniZero (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

<redacted> nude pics

Hello, my (rather photogenic, in my opinion) wife will pose for nude and non-nude pics if they are needed. <Link removed - see page history> is an example of some of the CC-by-SA-licensed work we did for fun; the <link removed - see page history> at the bottom links to similar work. We're amateurs at photography but if anyone has requests for particular images that will be useful for Wikimedia, or if you just want some for yourself, feel free to hit me up at User talk:Leucosticte or email me.

Also, if you know of some other repository for free images that would be suitable for contributing our work to, feel free to let me know about that too; I realize that Wikimedia has a specific educational mission and that it doesn't seek to acquire as many images as possible indiscriminately. Maybe there is another repository that simply seeks to gather collections of beautiful images for people to look at, without there being any need to use them as illustrations of concepts. If not, we still have our third-party wiki, although being on shared hosting, its capability to handle traffic is rather limited (sometimes it will stop loading pages altogether if it gets too many visits).

I guess there's always Flickr, imgsrc.ru, etc. but it seems like a lot of mainstream sites are pretty restrictive when it comes to nudity. Plus the goal is specifically to submit images to a repository of free-licensed work, and to enable them to be categorized usefully, the way that wiki communities often do so well. Maybe it's time to create a new wiki, outside the Wikimedia umbrella, for this purpose, if it doesn't already exist. The selection at wikiindex:Category:Adult content looks pretty barren, but August might meet the inclusion criteria for Boobpedia, especially as pregnancy gets underway. However, it would be preferable to contribute content to a site with a broader scope. Thanks, Leucosticte (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

This could be usefull, but you should (if you havent) read first the policy that emcopasses what kind of images are in Wikimedia Commons scope (and also it´s ancillaries COM:PORN and COM:NUDE). I also advise that if you and your wife release some images of yourselfs you should send an model release to Commons:OTRS to avoid having your files passing through a deletion review made by overzealous or by some censorship attempt, claiming some personality and identity issues. Tm (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think, we don´t need those pictures at all.--Hubertl (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no need in Commons for well-shot clearly licensed photos in the field of human sexuality? That seems like a pretty broad claim.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I think COM:PORN and COM:NUDE are quite irrelevant here. They talk about us not wanting low-quality (semi)pornographic images. We have an abundance of people shooting such images as drunk, some people uploading unfairly obtained images and some people sharing images to promote their business. Some aspects are adequately covered by the usable ones of these images, but for others we would desperately need serious volunteers.

We need neutral (non-erotic, non-pornographic) images for articles about anatomy and related fields. You mentioned pregnancy, which would be great to document. For many articles there is not too many good candidates to choose from – and we would like to have a much larger gallery than needed in the articles, showing variation and different aspects of the subject. For pregnancy, series, with too many images for the articles, would often be preferable. As you see we have quite many images of pregnancy, but it is still easy to get better ones (when you happen to have a model) or to be out of luck when searching for an illustration of something particular.

We also need erotic images for sex related articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia in English mostly uses drawn illustrations, but other language editions might prefer photos. In addition, projects like Wikibooks might delve much more deeply in the subject. We do host also indecent images ("commons is not censored"). We should be able to provide illustrations for a guide to sexuality and similar works – and again, we should be able to provide a larger gallery than what is needed in the specific projects.

Commons is an educational repository. Thus also images illustrating different aspects of sexuality would preferably have an other touch than pornographic images of the same subject. This does not, of course, not mean they cannot be erotic or show pleasure. But it makes many of the images we have less than ideal – and an image showing something specific is usually better than an image just being nice.

If you do upload, which I hope you will, you should be careful in choosing licence. The Creative Commons licences might give away also personality rights, when the subject and the licensor are the same person (the wording is unclear). You should also mail OTRS as suggested above, to make clear there are no copyright or privacy problems with the images.

--LPfi (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Fun stuff

[[:File:Self_portrait_of_Paulus_Moreelse_with_additional artwork.jpg|thumb|No, Paulus Moreelse, we don't need your drawing either.]]
Nice, but I'll revert it on the project page, after all it claims to be a guideline. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)