WikiIndex talk:File deletion policy: Difference between revisions
Manorainjan (talk | contribs) (→Obscenety: what is it?) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
[[User_talk:Manorainjan|'''<span style="color: orange;">Manorainjan</span>''']] 13:17, 10 August 2015 (PDT) | [[User_talk:Manorainjan|'''<span style="color: orange;">Manorainjan</span>''']] 13:17, 10 August 2015 (PDT) | ||
== | == Obscenity == | ||
The depiction of nudity is in itself not obscene, otherwise the human being would be obscene it itself. | The depiction of nudity is in itself not obscene, otherwise the human being would be obscene it itself. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
These are euphemisms and circumlocutions. But circumlocutions have no place at all in an explanation of a definition or policy. Whereas ''full frontal'' is an euphemism as well however well known this term may be, commonly used in [[Boobpedia]]. | These are euphemisms and circumlocutions. But circumlocutions have no place at all in an explanation of a definition or policy. Whereas ''full frontal'' is an euphemism as well however well known this term may be, commonly used in [[Boobpedia]]. | ||
I think that the term "patently offensive" even though very subjective, would be a better part of the definition. Is it meant to arouse? (Anger, fright, lust...). As such anything humorous would be not part of the definition, which should also be mentioned. --[[User_talk:Manorainjan|'''<span style="color: orange;">Manorainjan</span>''']] 01:09, 15 August 2015 (PDT) | I think that the term "patently offensive" even though very subjective, would be a better part of the definition. Is it meant to arouse? (Anger, fright, lust...). As such anything humorous would be not part of the definition, which should also be mentioned. --[[User_talk:Manorainjan|'''<span style="color: orange;">Manorainjan</span>''']] 01:09, 15 August 2015 (PDT) | ||
:'''Definitions''' Your suggestion is to take one phrase with "no real definition" and replace it with another? [[User:Koavf|Koavf]] ([[User talk:Koavf|talk]]) 07:39, 15 August 2015 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 14:39, 15 August 2015
- Usually sites have a policy to delete or moderate content that is offending like the undue display of violence, hatred or pornography. I think such a reason should be added.
- I would omit the remark "This also applies to articles in the main namespace." because in this manner the policy definition about that would be made on the page about files. If there is a valid policy about articles than simply link there in the see-also manner.
Manorainjan 13:17, 10 August 2015 (PDT)
Obscenity
The depiction of nudity is in itself not obscene, otherwise the human being would be obscene it itself. wp:Boxer at Rest --Manorainjan 01:45, 11 August 2015 (PDT)
The term "graphic nudity" seems to be no real definition. Someone on the net wrote: ...the MPAA means by some of its cryptic, unhelpful phrases related to naked bodies ... "Graphic nudity" is what is more commonly referred to as "full frontal." These are euphemisms and circumlocutions. But circumlocutions have no place at all in an explanation of a definition or policy. Whereas full frontal is an euphemism as well however well known this term may be, commonly used in Boobpedia. I think that the term "patently offensive" even though very subjective, would be a better part of the definition. Is it meant to arouse? (Anger, fright, lust...). As such anything humorous would be not part of the definition, which should also be mentioned. --Manorainjan 01:09, 15 August 2015 (PDT)