Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Nude images

The following discussion comes from Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. -Kbdank71 15:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Images of people with little clothing and Category:Images containing nudity
As per my reckoning, "little clothing" is 5 keep to 6 delete (no consensus(keep)) and "nude images" is 9 keep to 5 delete (keep).

Do we really need categories like these in an encyclopedia? Wikipedia isn't a soft porn website. -- FirstPrinciples 05:14, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with nudity, or even porn, in an encyclopedia – provided the images are in the context of a relevant artcle. But when you take the images out of context, simply putting them in a list, then I struggle to see the rationale. (What field of research would make "legitimate" use of these categories?) -- FirstPrinciples 05:26, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. The whole idea of categories is to make articles and images with a particular property easier to find, I think it is odd to say "this image is acceptable, but only if it is a bit difficult to find". Also, the category does not only give easy access to the image, but through the image page also to the article that contains the image, so that one can read e.g. about a painter of nudes. Thus one is led to the context.


 * Note that an article or image can be in more categories, such as also in that of the painter, painting style, the period in which it was painted, etc.


 * For more balance, a category "Images of modestly dressed people" could be set up.--Patrick 11:29, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Patrick except for the "Images of modestly dressed people" idea. Most of the images of people are modestly dressed, so that category would be enormous and a little silly.&rarr; Jarlaxle Artemis   00:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Category:Images of people with little clothing as utterly worthless. I can think of no way to give an objective (let alone useful) definition to "little clothing".  Is this meant to be mutually exclusive with the nudity category, so that anything short of total nudity, from toplessness to wearing nothing but socks, would be considered "little clothing"?  Or is this meant to be literally for "little" clothing such as skimpy bathing suits?  What about high skirts, low necklines and short shorts?  Would most pictures of athletes and body builders be included?  What of pictures of fully clothed individuals who are mooning or flashing?  At the very least, this would be the subject of endless edit wars.  I reserve judgment for the time being on Category:Images containing nudity until I see a more substantial explanation of its use.  Postdlf 07:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * A strict definition is difficult, but currently:
 * exposing genitals falls under nudity, but bare breasts do not
 * the two categories are mutually exclusive
 * whether wearing shorts or having bare shoulders would qualify is not well established yet


 * Just looking at the category pages gives a good idea.


 * Occasionally an image is moved to the other category, but in practice there are no edit wars.


 * Patrick 10:10, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Category:Images containing nudity. There is, I believe, a template that uses Category:Images containing nudity for the purpose of a warning and to keep track of images using the template. Maybe perhaps sometime in the future, the rating content system could be included into the wikipedia to filter out these images? -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, these categories can be helpful for, and be coordinated with, the proposed system of descriptive image tagging.--Patrick 10:46, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. These categories are grab-bags, linking pictures with nothing in common.  Everything from the Vitruvian Man sketch to photographs of people having sex. Magnets for prudes.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It is absurd to say that they have nothing in common, the name of the category says what they have in common; therefore I suppose you don't mean this literally. Please do not obscure a discussion with such an inaccurate formulation of what you mean. People having sex could be made a separate category.--Patrick 10:20, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with Sidaway, delete. Radiant! 21:02, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Keep both categories. They're very helpful. Recently I wanted to add a picture of a tastefully naked man to Man, to balance the tastefully naked woman at Woman. I went to Category:Images containing nudity and found Michaelangelo's David, which was perfect. I also added a picture I got from Mann and included it in Category:Images of people with little clothing, and today I see someone added the same picture to Swimsuit, so obviously they found that category useful as well. Anyway, no one looking for porn is going to go trolling Wikipedia's categories to find it, and if they do, they will be sorely disappointed. The images in these categories contain nudity or partial nudity, but not a single one of them is pornographic or obscene. --Angr 11:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Christiaan 01:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep the latter. No opinion on the "partial nudity" category.  -Sean Curtin 02:44, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the latter. Makes it easier to find unacceptable images that need to be deleted. Coming across a penis with a giant bullring piercing kinda ruins my day. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an encyclopedia.  We should be categorizing the articles, not the images within them.  If you're looking for specific images, isn't Commons the appropriate venue? --Azkar 21:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of also putting each image in one or more categories, in addition to the copyright category. That is done on Commons also, but not all images on Wikipedia are also on Commons. This may be separate image categories, or categories with articles also. In that case images and articles are automatically and neatly put in separate sections on the category page.--Patrick 00:03, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't really say I'm in love with the idea of categorizing the images on Wikipedia. Why do they need to be put into categories.  It makes sense on Commons, because the purpose of Commons is to be a source of media files.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  The images are just elements the articles contained.  People shouldn't be searching Wikipedia for certain types of images, they should go to Commons for that sort of thing. --Azkar 04:07, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can be used as an additional source of media files.--Patrick 11:37, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have been persuaded to keep the 'images containing nudity', if only as a convenient means to detect and police vandalism. However I still fail to see the relevance of 'images of people with little clothing'. -- FP 04:41, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep since some people put importance on such matters. -- Infrogmation 01:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete both categories. Categories are a means for people to find things easier, true, but why is anyone looking for such images in an encyclopedia?  Otherwise, I concur with Azkar.  -Kbdank71 15:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Anon - Perhaps the categories might find usefulness for prude mirrors, so they can show some images rather no images (i.e. don't show anything in categories x,y,z)?
 * It wouldn't exactly be a "mirror", then, would it? -Kbdank71 16:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)