Commons talk:Nudity categories
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Agree
[edit]Supporting this. Currently there are not even filters or file tags that enable users to e.g. exclude NSFW images in search results and/or blur them. One could possibly at some point use search operators like so -deepcategory:"Nude people" to exclude such in results like the search for "slow motion". Also see the categories and current file title of e.g. this file File:Sticker pack (53183007878).jpg.
Prototyperspective (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Not to burst your bubble, but:
deepcategoryis fairly limited. It only works on up to 5 levels, or a total of 256 subcategories (per en:H:DEEPCAT) - trying to use it to exclude a broad set of results will inevitably fail once the category structure becomes too complex. Omphalographer (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)- I know , that's why I created phab:T369808. I should add that one can also use this for the subcats at wherever category one is at like
deepcategory:"People cycling" -deepcategory:"Nude people cycling". Again, the deepcategory issues need to be fixed. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I know , that's why I created phab:T369808. I should add that one can also use this for the subcats at wherever category one is at like
Editorializing?
[edit]It seems to me that the mention of other sites in this edit amounts to editorializing. I would urge that we remove that portion of the edit. - Jmabel ! talk 22:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean by that – this page is just an essay. The mention of reddit seems useful since this is relevant information. However, it's suboptimal – it would be better if there was a list of similar large websites with info on how they handle this each. The way it's currently is keeping it short. I don't know why you'd want the mention of other sites removed, it seems really relevant and worth a brief mention. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly we disagree. Given that it is unsigned, I would say that is too POV. I don't see us resolving this between us. I'll mention it on the Village pump as neutrally as I can, but feel free to respond there if you feel my wording was not neutral. - Jmabel ! talk 19:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is not POV to add information about how other sites handle this since this is objectively relevant here.
- If it was POV that is still not a problem since this is an essay page. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I saw the VP post. The addition of the second paragraph does seem out of place as this page is entitled "Nudity categories" nothing to do with search.
- But the search and reddit points are interesting and belong in an essay somewhere. What about deleting the addition Jmabel disputes and replacing it with a "See also" section with links to Commons:Nudity and a new essay Commons:Content filters (not sure about the best title).
- Commons:Content filters could discuss Community Wishlist ideas, reddit, Google safesearch, Youtube kids, whatever. Commander Keane (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense. (also @Omphalographer: ) I don't have much of a problem with removing it, I just disagreed that doing so would be good but don't care much about it and I forgot to say that a main point for keeping or adding it was that the page is really short, don't you think? A little bit of extra relevant info could be good. Nudity categories are also relevant to the search, e.g. they could be used in the search that is why this info is not tangential or more ontopic than it may seem at first. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Minor point: yes they are not tangential as Commons:Content filtering (note I prefer this slight name change) would be a parent essay for "Nudity categories", which is itself a form of filtering. Commander Keane (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's about or necessarily about filtering – it's about blurring and things like that. Where there are filters, "Content filtering" would make it seem as if it's about filtering content away but not e.g. giving users filtering options. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Minor point: yes they are not tangential as Commons:Content filtering (note I prefer this slight name change) would be a parent essay for "Nudity categories", which is itself a form of filtering. Commander Keane (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense. (also @Omphalographer: ) I don't have much of a problem with removing it, I just disagreed that doing so would be good but don't care much about it and I forgot to say that a main point for keeping or adding it was that the page is really short, don't you think? A little bit of extra relevant info could be good. Nudity categories are also relevant to the search, e.g. they could be used in the search that is why this info is not tangential or more ontopic than it may seem at first. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly we disagree. Given that it is unsigned, I would say that is too POV. I don't see us resolving this between us. I'll mention it on the Village pump as neutrally as I can, but feel free to respond there if you feel my wording was not neutral. - Jmabel ! talk 19:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Support removal. Whatever one may think of these points, they're tangential to the intent of the essay. Omphalographer (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)