Jump to content

Portal talk:Nudity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Create Clothes free portal

[edit]

Creating a portal for topics relating to clothes free and naked topics. Dandelion1 07:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While Wikipedia is not censored.. is there a way to move the pictures to the bottom of the screen? --Masssiveego 07:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything for you. Dandelion1 07:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
why they should be moved? --tasc 07:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for move

[edit]
  1. There is no equivalent article for this portal. Clothes free.
  2. Clothes free is a misleading term, some people may think the portal is related to clothes that cost no money. Nudity makes it clear on what this portal is about.

Please feel free to discuss the move below. Thank you. GizzaChat © 23:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
  • "clothes free" or "nudity" "is suitable". Until very recently (yesterday?) the article currently at Naturism was at Clothes free movement. This Portal was created when the article was at that title, and Clothes free should probably redirect there. I actually think that either "clothes free" or "nudity" is a suitable umberella term for "nudity", "naturism", "nudism", and other activities that may be within scope (I can't remember and can't be bothered to check) e.g. "streaking", "life drawing", "exhibitionism". If there is a serious possibility of people thinking that the title refers to clothes that don't cost money (free as in beer), which I would call "free clothes" rather than the freedom not to wear clothes (free as in speech) then I don't think anything more than a good first sentence and/or a topline disambig (or equivalent) is needed. Thryduulf 23:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, what kind of person would be looking on Wikipedia, of all places, for information about free clothes and type in "clothes free"? User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 19:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move to nudity, Support existing name "clothes free" or suggest move to "Naked". What would be the implications though if it were changed to nudity? Would we theb replace clothes free movement with the nudity movement? Rename clothes free organizations to nudity organizations? I think the latter is not in as much use as clothes free organizations. This is an interesting discussion, to me at least. Dandelion1 01:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've changed my mind. Nudity sounds fine, although not so smooth to my ear. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 00:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very bad idea and would be in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Either of these suggestions would result in contentious, biased environments. Calling it naturism would upset many nudists, calling it nudism would upset many naturists. See also Talk:Naturism for a discussion of the debate going on regarding use of these words. KimvdLinde seems set on using one or the other and has refused to use NPOV alternatives suggested. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 19:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd like to response to KimvdLinde's claim that "clothes free/clothes-free" is intimately linked to a corporation. Yes, one corporation does have the term in their name and it does reflect that many other organizations are also using the term.Use of the words clothes free is documented on the following websites: Sea Mountain Resort, Mystic Oaks, White Tail Park, Wai-natur Naturist Park, Bare Necessities Tour and Travel, Bell Acres Resort, Sunsport Gardens, Bare Buns Family Nudist Club, Joe and Natalie's Naked Page Body Freedom Collaborative (BFC) mission statement page, World Naked Bike Ride London, World Naked Bike Ride 2005 Report for Portland Clothing free/clothing-free is also used. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 19:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This debate on terminology I think also merits a discussion within an article. See: labels, associations and terminology. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 00:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my response above to KimvdLinde. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 19:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post Move Votes

[edit]

(Votes After 00:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC))

(This are not late votes as the request is still pending despite that it has been moved already KimvdLinde 07:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)).[reply]
Sorry. I found out about the move after it happened so I decided not to comment so that the Discussion can be archived. Then I noticed Kaz added a vote so I figured I should to. What I Meant by “late votes” is that it is unfair to imply Dandelion moved the page when people Objected. Nobody Objected when it was moved and I couldn’t Put my vote for Oppose in retrospect. The move may be premature but that doesn’t mean people expressed that they opposed the move before it was moved. I Oppose the idea of the move but I do not oppose (or support) Dandelion’s decision at the time to move. 12 April. It’s our faults for coming in after the debate.--E-Bod 23:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)edited--E-Bod 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was a move request added to the Wikipedia:Requested_moves page, and as such, it is not closed before the normal period of 5 days is passed. As such, the move was premature. KimvdLinde 04:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK I no longer object if you want to remove my noting that these are "Post Move Votes"--E-Bod 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the move to nudity. I have my doubts about "clothes free", though. Not that anyone's actually dumb enough to think it's about clothing that costs no money, that's a lame rationale. But "nudity" seems too vague, as this is about people who're specifically advocating or exercising nudity, not simply any nudity which occurs. "Nudity" includes when you are taking a shower, or your house burns down and you're forced to run outside naked. That's just not specific enough.
The name must indicate that people are going out of their way to be naked in public. --Kaz 02:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outsider's Oppose "clothes free" sounds more... Expresive. While "Nudity" sounds more Sexual. I also don't think anybody thinks clothes free means free clothes or free the clothes. Nudity sounds like you are looking down on the act. (of course it was already changed so it's to late for me and i'm not involed in this portal I'm just comenting on the name form an Outsider's POV). Nudism and Naturism as Aldux sugested sound good thou. However Nudity sounds off key--E-Bod 02:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus reached to move Portal:Clothes free to Portal:Nudity

[edit]
See Portal:Nudity. Pages moved over by User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 00:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion time was not yet over, and your decision was premature. There are several people objecting to this move!KimvdLinde 08:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a completely bogus name. Perhaps "clothes free" was not right, but "nudity" is far worse. People are nude all the time...this portal isn't for people who sleep naked, or take baths without swimsuits, or even nude dancers in strip bars. It's specifically for people who are advocating or engaging in being naked in public settings, or other taboo situations, in a nonsexual and "normal" behavior sort of way. It's not about nudity, per se, it's about something far more specific than that. --Kaz 02:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can include these other settings of nudity.--Patrick 10:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is not the same argument as at Talk:Naturism. This portal could -- and probably should -- cover all nudity-related topics, not just Social Nudity (aka Clothes-Free Movement, aka Nudism, aka Naturism). In that light, Portal:Nudity is almost certainly the best name for it, regardless of what is eventually done with the Naturism article. Powers 14:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the name nudity stinks. But its what consensus showed after days of debate. It does shift the coverage from what you could call social nudity to a slightly more broad category of nudity. Whatever. Maybe a few months down the road someone will nominate it to be moved to something else, and we get to be yanked around again. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 19:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive Pictures.

[edit]

Image vandalism Uploading provocative images, inserting political messages, making malicious animated GIFs, etc. Repeatedly uploading images with no source and/or license information after notification that such information is required may also constitute vandalism.

I have noticed that most pages dealing with nudity have a abundance of pictures. I believe this is excessive and used for titilation. Notice the amount of pictures on other pages. Public Nudity has five at last count. The page on images has none! The page on video has four, all of which are charts to help explain concepts. I propose that we limit the amount of explicit images on Wikipedia. It's not a adult magizine after all. — [Unsigned comment added by 67.150.215.63 (talk • contribs).]

See WP:ISNOT. KimvdLinde 21:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Not-censored" boxes

[edit]
Two templates you may find useful for the top of nudity-related article talk pages:
  • {{notcensored}} or {{subst:notcensored}}: the one line text box (seen at the top of this page) asking those who would complain about article content to first read Wikipedia is not censored. Short, generic, may fit other topics than nudity or sex.
  • {{notcensored2}} or {{subst:notcensored2}}: replicates the longer block of text, with stop-sign logo, that already appeared on a number of talk pages for sex- and/or nudity-related articles featuring images. Because this specifically addresses the use of images of nudity, it wouldn't pertain to text-only articles, or to articles where the images are not of nudity or sexual anatomy. Note two minor differences from the original text block (besides being much shorter if you don't "subst"): 1) a blank line at top was removed; and 2) you don't need to insert the article name, since the BASEPAGENAME variable does that automagically.
I've been adding these sporadically where the topic either does or seems likely to draw requests for censorship. Feel free to "go thou and do likewise", if it might help reduce or resolve such arguments. Good luck! -- Ben 22:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, anyone here?

[edit]

How come you guys don't have a list of active members? I was hoping to perhaps contact some of you personally, but this appears to perhaps be the best way. Are any of you, perchance, photographers that would be willing to help me illustrate the article on anatomical terms of location? I have been seeking a photographer to get images of humans in the standard anatomical position for some time, with no success so far. I was hoping to find someone with a more open mind and shutter here. If anyone's interested, or can suggest who to contact, just leave me a note either here, or on my talk page, and I'll fill you in on the specs I'm seeking. Thanks all. Esseh 12:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which part of the world do you live? What about using a stock photo company? User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 16:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in Canada. Haven't found any stock photos of the sort anywhere. As well, wouldn't that pose a copyright problem? Usually they only sell for limited use, I thought. Suggestions are welcome. Esseh 22:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Template converted to standard navbox and moved to Template:Nudity. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:23, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Nudity

[edit]

Does anyone think it is time to setup a "WikiProject Nudity (WP:NUDE or WP:NUDITY)? There are a reasonable number of articles out there which would fall under the scope of such a project, and these articles tend to require a lot of monitoring and upkeep. In particular, just keeping an eye on the photo content of the articles is a job in itself. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

checkY. I can see benefits, particularly in 'screening' new articles, so editors don't spend time rehearsing the battles of the past. I think that WP:NUDITY is the correct tag: all the Naturist/Nudist arguments do not apply as we are discussing a state of dress not a philosophy. I see difficulty in getting members to join, wishing to visit rather than sign up to a group. ClemRutter (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll see a number of regular editors join. Also, in the future, I could see Naturism/Nudism splitting off into its own project, but for now getting everything under one umbrella gives a good starting point. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why there's been so little attention at what I would consider a pretty... "entertaining(?)" topic. The nav template and the portal had both been sorely neglected. It's possible a project might revitalize it. I'm certainly sure creation of such a project would be seen as reasonable and non-controversial, so it can just be done, probably without any further discussion. This is likely a case of if-you-build-it, they-will-come. I'll let you do the honors (creating the page etc), StuffOfInterest, but if you need assistance let me know. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:53, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I bootstrapped WP:HAM, so I'm not too concerned about getting the pages up and running. Mostly, I'd just like to know we'll have a reasonable number of people joining in. If time permits this weekend I'll try to get the pages setup and a template ready to start tagging articles. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MAYBE. But the Nudity template is already terrible. Many of the articles as well. I'd not mind seeing half of them about get absorbed into the others. I mean, Nudity in the home and Nudity and children? How are those anything more than sections with the Nudity article? Also, look at the edit histories for many of the less mainstream-named articles (i.e. not Nudity, not Naturism... the long, weird ones). A project for it? I'm undecided. COuld be good, could be bad. • VigilancePrime • • • 03:31 (UTC) 28 Mar '08
Stuff being terrible is the perfect reason to create a project. If it were all perfect already, there would be no need. As for everything being a section of nudity, the nudity article is already pretty long. That's why we split things off into separate articles. It might all fall under one general topic, but it is a pretty vast topic that merely one article couldn't possibly cover. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:42, 28 Mar 2008 (UTC)
As usual, Eq, I find myself being forced to agree with you. :-P
I imagine that a Project would also help to slim down those that don't belong (like the recent merge of N/home into N/children). I can accept that. I'd even be game for helping in the project, so you've successfully swayed me. If you're in, Eq, I'm in.
... • VigilancePrime • • • 06:22 (UTC) 28 Mar '08

OK, I've gone ahead and setup the project. Please check to To Do list as there is a lot of work just on bootstrapping this thing. Thanks for the support and suggestions on getting it started. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of MFD

[edit]

Anyone watching this portal may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nudity/Web resources. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the portal with new dynamic features.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is Nudity at all?

[edit]

Did you know that Facebook censores photos of girls from Yap weaving baskets from coconut leaves because they are traditionaly dressed but their nipples are visible? --Plenz (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Nudity&oldid=1234375613"