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