Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nobreasts

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:Nobreasts

[edit]

who decides, from what we have enought? A single person or a small group? Such templates are not OK for a free project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Cyron (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2009 May 5 (UTC)

  • Template:Nobreasts (category version) too  — Mike.lifeguard 02:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Why be sexist? Where is your crusade against {{Nopenis}}? Does commons not deserve more penis in kind? --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Anyone who is prepared to get involved in the disscussion gets to work on decideing.Geni (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Strong delete, completely improper on a number of different levels. Such templates generally, regardless of subject matter, are completely contrary to the mission and principles of Commons. The goal of compiling a freely licensed and open image repository is never finished so long as there are more images to include, and the last thing we should do is formally discourage anyone from uploading anything that falls within the scope of Commons. I'm sure we also don't "require" any more contemporary photos of the Statue of Liberty or the Eiffel Tower, but there always remains the possibility that further uploads are better in photographic quality, present different weather or lighting conditions, or highlight details not previously seen. And this potential for greater informational breadth is far more true of images of any portion of human anatomy or appearance (even limiting it to contemporary) than it is of images of fixed man-made landmarks. There is such significant variation in the size and shape of breasts, not to mention the context in which they are photographed, such that Commons could never have what could objectively be viewed as a comprehensive or sufficient collection of images. If photos of human breasts are appropriate for Commons, which they are, then there cannot be too many photos of this very broad subject any more than of other subjects. Postdlf (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note the use of the word generaly.
I meant that templates of this general nature are contrary to Commons principles, not that such templates are usually contrary to Commons principles. Postdlf (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The large number of low quality penis pics we get suggests we do. Also keeps down the copyvios.
Please justify your claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs) 01:35, 2009 May 12 (UTC)
Please sign your post... Chaddy (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepuntil we invent a search engine that can judge image quality allowing large numbers of low quality images harms common's mission.Geni (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It's just a template that points out a specific reason why an image does not fall within our scope. The deleting admin will exercise their judgment, as usual. Brynn (talk!) 23:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But images of "contemporary breasts" are not outside of Commons' scope. There is nothing "specific" about these templates, except that they disfavor a "specific" (though really broad) subject matter. The talk page notice can be targeted in its application, but it is still unfocused as to whether the problem is the low quality of the image (a valid issue), the purported motive of the uploader (an irrelevant issue), or whether there are "too many" images of the subject matter (an invalid issue to consider). Postdlf (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't see any rationale in the above comments so far that would support keeping the category template; all of the reasons above are relevant only to the talk page template, to which I admit I have less of an objection. Postdlf (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and delete the "no penis" template too This gives spurious justification to a policy that doesn't and shouldn't exist on the Commons. It is a bogus official stamp just waiting to be (mis)used. I once moved a picture from the Wikipedia which was speedily deleted by a moderator on grounds of scope and when I pointed out that it was actually in use, the only reply was to see the "no penis" template. In other places you will see this very template used to justify the deletion of pictures of nude women! (That's called irony, look it up). We do have a glut of certain sorts of picture together with an annoying tendency of users to upload more but dealing with this problem should not be used as a cloak for censorship. --Simonxag (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is not in any way shape or form shot of pics of nude women.Geni (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you intended to use the word "short," not "shot"? My comment above, timestamp 16:07, 9 May 2009, already addresses this point. Postdlf (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no reason to encourage users to upload even more breasts and penises to Wikimedia Commons, just to display them on the web. Of course we need more images from notable (!) artists and images with medical importance, but not from anonymous girlfriends or women from the beach, without their consent, without artistic approach, mmedical importance and often dubious licensing. This template is no basis to delete future uploads, but hopefully reminds users what this all is about. --Polarlys (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC) PS: And see Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Nopenis by the way. Compared to penises, brests seem to have a lobby here, don’t they guys? ;) --Polarlys (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument applies to some extent to Template:Nobreasts, which could definitely be more targeted to the image faults you identify, but it does not apply at all to Template:Nobreasts (category version), which just disfavors an image's subject without regard to whether it complies with guidelines or rules. Postdlf (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, this has been open for a month with comment... I was going to close this as "No consensus to delete" however I don't see any arguments for keeping the category version (as Postdlf points out) which is a very different thing. So what should we do about that? Rocket000 (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You musn´t count votes but decide due to arguments... If there are no arguments to keep so feel free to delete the page. It´s the same if a hundred people would say "keep" but don´t have any arguments and only one lonely man (or woman ;)) has arguments for deletion... Chaddy (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's more that it was added separately by someone other than the nominator and no one (of the keepers) said anything about it, so I thought I'd give them a chance before deleting it (mainly because it's still used on multiple categories). Rocket000 (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I don't see why we shouldn't have more great pictures (this goes for penises too). Sure, there are other areas where the need is greater, but I don't see any reason why we should keep people from uploading images. If we are absolutely overwhelmed (which I don't see how we could be), we can delete the bad images. We have plenty of space anyway, if the images are free, I think Commons should be the place to look for them. I don't see any reliable method of deciding which images are to be deleted. Should be done on a image by image basis. --Ysangkok (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete because as long as the images are within scope there is not problem. I could see the need for a generic template saying something like "We already have quite some picture of this subject. Please consider if your image will be usefull within the project scope before uploading another one." That could be used on already overcrowded categories like the statue of liberty, eiffel tower, hoover dam, pyramids of Gaza, US flags and so on. // Liftarn (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep A message to user's that tries to discourage these uploads is no bad thing: Its not a deletion template and if it stops one person uploading 3 further low-res pictures of the same pair of breasts its done its job. Also keep the category version: It can be re-formulated to carry a similar message: Low quality, no permission, etc = no thanks. As this (and the penis one) are special cases, I think even if a generic version is created (Liftarn's suggestion is sound there) these should be kept.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those cases you list we have the project scope regulations. And images without permission are copyright violations and have to be deleted. This template doen´t help to prevent such cases. It´s meant to prevent uploaders uploading also images with a good quality because we reputedly had enough of them... Chaddy (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not meant to stop high quality uploads - the message can be altered if you feel its achieving that effect. Maybe it helps to stop bad uploads, maybe it doesn't. If it stops one useless upload its beneficial. Of course that's the category template. The talk message is something else entirely and isn't an issue at all imo.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus, default to keep. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:Nobreasts

[edit]

Per discussion Commons talk:Nudity, different from {{Nopenis}}, breasts are not part of the human genitalia and the category is not being flooded at this moment. The current {{Commons nudity}} warning in the category is enough. The previous DR was opened in 2009, which ended up no consensus. It is the time to have another DR to see if this template is appropriate or not. A1Cafel (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete {{Commons nudity}} is perfectly adequate, and breasts, although not genitalia, are considered as secondary sexual organs. But that's no reason not to have appropriate images here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per Rod. SHB2000 (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment There are clearly different issues. A separate discussion would be the way forward. But not here please. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Nobreasts&oldid=631285002"