Commons talk:Nudity

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
1, 2, 3

Videos and rationale

[edit]

Inspired by Commons:Deletion requests/File:Male masturbation ejaculation.ogg I've replaced all "images" by "files" or "media" or "images and videos", IOW, "videos" should now be covered. While at it I've trimmed the section headers, removed a link to a rejected guideline, and merged "policies" with "guidelines". The section "rationale" should be rewritten or removed, because it discusses a state when this guideline was still a draft. The part about "media better than existing files" (was: images) is rather obscure, context can be good, as it says, but IMO a close-up can be also good, as it doesn't say: non-confrontational framing (e.g. side-on) over "shocking" close-up shots. Can this be removed as hogwash? –Be..anyone (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "rationale" has been in this article since at least 2006. It seems a bit absurd to say that "at the moment there are no guidelines or policies to guide administrators as to what the acceptable bounds of content here should be" if that "moment" is more than ten years ago. --91.34.40.97 17:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand if you're proposing removing the entire "media better than existing files" section or just the "non-confrontational framing" part. I would weakly oppose removing the "non-confrontational framing" part and strongly oppose removing the "media better than existing files" section. I think those are all reasonable considerations to make when evaluating media featuring nudity. Agree with fixing the rationale section though. Kaldari (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yes that is what I am thinking Kasala kgotso (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove bracketed unlimited application to non-nudity

[edit]

Back in 2014 this change was made by SamB (talk · contribs) consisting of adding: 

(But this is in no way restricted to files containing nudity or sexual content; *anything* of poor quality may be deleted in favor of higher-quality replacements.)

Checking the archives I can find no related discussion of this change, so it appears there never was a community consensus to extend this official guideline on Nudity to all of Commons' media files. I propose to remove it as an untrue statement, and if anyone thinks it is valid, they should be able to provide evidence of a credible consensus in 2014, or create a new proposal to re-add the text.

Note SamB has been inactive for over a year.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now removed diff. --Fæ (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where to request specific images?

[edit]

Where is the best place to request specific images? I currently see that I don’t see any images of genitals from the person’s eye view. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • In general, Commons isn't a place to request images. If you have a genuine need of this photo to illustrate a Wikipedia article or for a similar purpose, you typically should request this through a WikiProject on Wikipedia.
  • That said, I suspect that if you look in the relevant categories for human genitalia, especially male human genitalia, there will be a lot of genital selfies shot without the aid of a mirror. I have no desire to go look & verify that statement. Let us know here how that works for you and whether you still come up short. - Jmabel ! talk 05:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Best to request missing images on the Village_pump, where photography drives are often discussed. High quality nude and erotica photos are in short supply. --Fæ (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translation and rooster picture

[edit]

This image of rooster should be one translation unit, so that speakers of languages other than English can choose another suitable picture or even comment the entire picture out. The word "cock" has at least two different meanings in English, but this may not be the case in other languages. A picture of a rooster is utterly meaningless in the Persian edition of the policy page! 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fixed. –LPfi (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should breasts be part of COM:NUDE?

[edit]

Proposed adding "breasts" into COM:Nudity#New uploads. Strictly speaking, breasts is part of the genitalia of female. Similar to penis, we don't encourage people to take a photo of their breasts, cuz we have a lot already. This is not COM:CENSOR, we are not totally against people uploading breasts, just want them to upload image related to breasts that are in scope, such as breast feeding or other images that have medical usage. Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nobreasts ended up no consensus to delete. We see that the community do have different opinion on whether breasts violated COM:NUDE or not. Pinging @Geni: as the template {{Nobreasts}} creator and @Marcus Cyron: the DR nominator of that template. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobreasts

[edit]

I had no idea that {{Nobreasts}} existed. It seems a misleading template in the context of our common understanding of what the nudity guidelines are intended to mean. Based on transclusions it appears unused. A DR was opened and closed in 2009 with none since. Any overriding reason to keep it, or evidence of an existing consensus? If not it should go to deletion request again. --Fæ (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: Should we remove the {{Commons nudity}} at Category:Breasts? --A1Cafel (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't especially care. In general terms, Commons would be improved by at least half of the pseudo "warning" templates and "advisory" templates that never had any consensus in the first place, getting deleted. An untemplated comment is sufficient and more meaningful most of the time. --Fæ (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm not sure I have a firm opinion about this, but I would like to observe that breasts are not genitalia in any way, shape or form. By the way, in New York State, per a decision by the Court of Appeals, the state's top court, since men are allowed to be topless in public, so are women. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering quality in deletion requests

[edit]

Many penis photos have recently been nominated for deletion, citing a rationale like:

Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful

These deletion requests include:

At both of these requests, I voted to keep based on specific comments I made about the photo’s quality and description. And at both of these requests, A1Cafel replied:

This is not about quality, but about whether this photo is really useful on Commons. We already had thousands of penis photo, and we don't need more ordinary penis photo.

I find it horrifying that we would delete files, just because they are in large categories, without regard to quality. So I invite A1Cafel to explain their position further. Brianjd (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's also the basic point of nudity policy. Unless they showed any specialty of the penis (or other kind of nudity image), they should be deleted as commons is not an amateur porn site. Media on Commons should be realistically useful for an educational purpose. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A1Cafel The policy says (strong emphasis added):
New files of low resolution or poor quality which provide little descriptive information of a subject we already have files of may be nominated for deletion citing appropriate rationale(s). …
… A new file of decent quality may mean that a similar poor image or video can be deleted. …
If a new image or video depicts something we already have, but in a better way, the older file may be considered for deletion.
So it is about quality. What do you mean by This is not about quality? Brianjd (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue seems like conflating "technical quality" with another sense of quality that deals with usefulness and uniqueness. Technical quality alone isn't sufficient to keep a photo. Anyone can take 1000 good technical photos of themselves with even a cell phone camera these days. I think there's agreement we don't want all of those, so have to consider what it adds to an already busy category. That's what the DRs are for. IMO this one is a pretty standard example of what should be deleted. Resolution alone isn't enough. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons doesn't have limited storage capacity and doesn't cease storing photos that are "deleted," anyway, so what could possibly be the advantage in deleting good photos? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
deleting good photos - but again, what defines "good"? My point above was that technical quality alone isn't sufficient to keep (as in the example of 1000 decent-quality but nearly identical phone camera shots of the same subject). The reason for getting rid of some isn't storage space but making our systems for discovering, using, and organizing media more functional. If a category is flooded with a thousand nearly identical phone camera shots, searches for that subject will be flooded (nevermind navigating the category directly). I don't think we're doing anybody a service by hosting thousands of penis pictures that don't realistically add anything beyond what we already have, even if the technical quality is fine. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the example you cited is good enough; that's debatable. I agree with Infrogmation that lighting, composition, resolution and other photographic factors are relevant. I also definitely agree with a degree of selectivity. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My position that human anatomy and human sexuality are within project scope has been repeated many times since early in the project. That does not mean that I think it a good idea for anyone who has a penis should take a snapshot of it, and it will be in scope regardless of lighting, composition, resolution, and other photographic factors. Simply stated, the human penis is an extremely common objects (there are estimated to be around 4 billion of them at this moment). There is unfortunate cultural attitude of some people to eagerly proclaim "LOOK!! I HAS A PENIS!!!!" and take a (usually bad quality) snapshot of it; an unfortunate number of such people seem under the impression that Commons is a good place to upload such photos. Allowing such photos to remain here will encourage that impression. Commons does not constantly get an influx poor quality snapshots of people's toe nails or of bits of dust in the corner of rooms, for example, because most other common objects do not have the same cultural connotations. The more media Commons has related to a subject, the higher the bar gets for additional photos to add significant quality to Commons coverage of the subject. A poor quality snapshot may have compensating value if it shows something unusual and of rare significance (eg File:Moorman photo of JFK assassination.jpg); a poor quality snapshot of a very common object which Commons already has at least a few thousand good quality images of does not. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further thoughts/comments: I think Commons has reached the point that we have enough penis photos that additional ones are unlikely to realistically improve our coverage of the subject unless the photographer takes professional quality high resolution photos, or if the photo shows some very unusual medical condition. However those with more interest in the subject are welcome to improve categorization of penis media on Commons, and if we have paucity of coverage of some human penis related topic to identify such. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barefoot people and topless males

[edit]

There are two types of so-called "partial nudity" that are widespread across the world: barefoot people and topless male humans. Barefoot people are extremely common in beaches, indoors, and many places of worship, especially mosques and Dharmic (Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh) temples. Topless male humans are also ubiquitous in developing countries, including poors, priests, and tribes. They are also found in all beaches across the world. So I propose the following:

  • Remove barefoot people from partially nude categories.
  • Remove the {{Commons nudity}} template from topless male humans, while retaining them under partially nude categories.
  • Neither barefoot people nor topless male humans should be the subjects of our policy on nudity.

Courtesy pinging @Joshbaumgartner as he has worked extensively on nude categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No distinction should be made between male and female people who are "topless". If one is "partially nude", the other is equally. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true for the category structure, but for the purposes of enforcing this policy, topless males should be an exception. Virtually no one will embarrass on seeing a topless male except being made topless by an external agent, but they will embarrass on seeing a topless female, especially woman. Besides, it is not a good idea to delete a pic of a topless man just because it violates our policy of nudity for showing him topless. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • My preference would be to no longer pretend that topless people are "nude". "Partially nude" seems a dubious category, maybe we can do without it or perhaps should be narrowly restricted (perhaps to people nude from the waist down but wearing clothing above - although perhaps better language than "partially nude" can be found for such situations). Let's restrict "nude" categories to people who are actually nude (not wearing any clothes at all). -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a better idea. When I think of the term "nude", I would think of a person standing entirely naked. I would not think that the person is topless or bottomless. "Partially nude" is a valid term, indicating that the person/people depicted is/are not completely naked. However, there should be a limit on the extent of the definition of "partially nude". Barefoot people are not really considered "partially nude", and they are ubiquitous in beaches, temples, mosques etc. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In fact, an IP user had CFD'ed Category:Barefoot girls (direct link: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:Barefoot girls) with a somewhat valid reason. According to the user, if you consider the people not wearing shoes as barefoot, you would also have to consider the people not wearing gloves or headgear as well. The discussion was closed by The Squirrel Conspiracy for being a "nonsense nomination". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't disagree with you that there are valid reasons to discuss that category. Perhaps that CfD should have been left open to allow legitimate discussion to develop. However, I also don't disagree with closing it, as the nomination was indeed a ramble verging on sarcasm that didn't exactly provide a good base for constructive discussion. It might indeed be best if there is a rational discussion that is needed, instead of trying to salvage that CfD, for someone instead to start a new discussion with a rational posting of legitimate reasoning and propose a constructive solution, much as how you have done here with this discussion. Josh (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Infrogmation, Category:Nude people is the parent of Category:Partially nude people because it follows the same structure as Category:Nudity. 'Nude people' include any depiction of people for which some portion depicted may be considered nudity. The wording is mildly unfortunate because you are correct that the initial impression from the mere name can be that it means fully nude people, but this is not the case. Ideally, "fully nude" and "partially nude" should be parallel sub-categories under 'nude', but that has not really been developed yet. Under Category:Nude people, how we categorize different depictions of it is a good matter for discussion. We should consider both restructuring and potential renaming of some of the categories in the tree. Josh (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that in categorization, all genders should be treated equivalently. Some cultures may attach different norms to certain genders, but that is not the role of Commons. Josh (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 Thank you for pinging, I have indeed been doing a lot of work on the task of diffusing the intersectional 'nude or partially nude' categories so we can be rid of that problem. In the process I have come across a lot of things being done with these categories and developed a good understanding of how the current structure works, a lot of things that can be improved, and a number of issues that will need to be addressed in making those improvements. I have been waiting until the diffusion of the 'nude or partially nude' cats is done so that we have a good baseline for discussion regarding changes and so a comprehensive proposal can be constructed to improve the entire topic tree. I am not saying everyone has to wait until I am done, but unless something is critically wrong and needs immediate attention, it might be best to hold off on making any quick judgements until the current changes are done and we can address it more comprehensively.
As for the particular proposal you are making here, first off, your rationale is irrelevant to the matter. Whether something is or is not a depiction of some form of nudity is irrelevant to how common or widespread a practice is. Nudity is not categorized as a taboo or something embarrassing or even controversial. It is merely a characteristic of some depictions of people which we host on this project, it is a topic and thus we categorize said depictions here. Barefoot people are simply people depicted without clothing/footwear on their feet, i.e. their feet are nude. Certain cultures may consider this to be provocative in some situations, others may not bat an eye at it, but that doesn't matter here. As for whether nudity policy applies, of course it does: Commons:Nudity applies to all images, and no image we host should violate it. It is mentioned (mainly by {{Commons nudity}}) on certain topics where it is deemed there may be a higher than usual potential for users to upload images that may violate the policy, as well as categories with content that some users unfamiliar with the policy may otherwise presume that the current contents are in violation. Essentially, there is nothing technically or practically wrong about posting that on barefoot categories, as there is certainly a tangible potential for barefoot images that violate nudity policy.
A recent study of uploaders found that a very high number of users inaccurately think that images of nudity are actually not allowed on Commons, or are at least extremely restricted. We also routinely have CfDs posted, often by IP users, complaining a category is just a bunch of nudie pics and should be deleted, clearly not understanding the nudity policy. This is another reason to post the nudity hatnote, so users have a chance to see the policy first before flagging a category for discussion. Josh (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My view: (1) genders should be treated the same in this respect. Otherwise we have too much to work out culturally. (2) The notion of "partially nude" is useful (but barefoot doesn't belong in it, nor does a bare midriff on an otherwise clothed person). - Jmabel ! talk 17:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Nudity&oldid=903230073"