Commons talk:List of genitalia for review

striking non-sexual images or images with educational purpose

I have stricken a few images that are not really "sexual content": depicting medical conditions, rare genital conditions, simple drawings (which are supposed to be used in place of photographies of genitals, so deleting them would be counter-productive for the purposes of this page), topless natives from cultures that never cover female breasts in the first place, etc.

This way we can discard images that don't need deletion, and look better at those that do. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Red links

As of checking right now: 4, 5, 44, 49, 58, 78, 88, 91, 92, 97, 102, 121, 142, 146, 148, 151, 178, 205, 236, 247, 250, 256, 278, 300, 306, 319, 325, 332, 353, 376, 380 and 385 are all red links. I understand the benefit to keeping these up on the page for record-keeping purposes (so that people are aware that some of the genitalia reviewed on this page were subsequently removed).

However, just so that we can acknowledge what has happened, I am not sure exactly what to do. Should we do a strikethrough or perhaps move all of them to a separate section or maybe both?

Another thing I am worried about is, whenever things are deleted, frequently the associated talk pages are also deleted. Seeing as how talk pages are not offensive, and how they represent conversations had about image appropriateness, should we not retain them? To me they seem like preliminary accessories which accompany the discussions for deletion which we do keep on record for deleted pages even after they deleted. The deletion discussions are not merely kept if the article is kept, the conversations are retained regardless of the outcome, so the talk pages should also.

In the very least, I think that perhaps deleted talk pages could be made into redirects and all their contents pasted on 1 large page, such as this one. TY© (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)