Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Bunny Bleu

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Bunny Bleu

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002.

This is a single item category, which is against the first sentence of Commons:Categories, the official policy: : "A category is a software feature of MediaWiki, a special page which is intended to group related pages and media". The word "pages" and "media" are plural and imply that categories should have two or more files as members. It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. The single file in this category should be recategorised to the parent category. FredWalsh (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep, obviously. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment: FredWalsh should avoid wikilawyering on unrelated tangents in his anti-pron crusade. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Why "obviously"? Do you have a policy-based reason for keeping? If you don’t like the policy, ask for it to be changed from plural to singular. FredWalsh (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Read the words of the policy carefully - it states the plural. FredWalsh (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

media can be single or plural. Or what is the singular of media? Tm (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tm: Media is the plural for "medium". Read the fourth paragraph of the lead in that WP article. FredWalsh (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

And read "" It is essential that every file can be found by browsing the category structure."" in the policy you cite, and see that this is a proper category Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/06/Category:Single item categories

And where have I suggested the single file should be completely de-categorised? There are appropriate higher-level categories it should be put into. FredWalsh (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Deleting this category is adding one more item that in the future will be again have this same category and this category with Wikidata item and 120 articles. And nothing in this policy prohibits the existence that a category to have only one image, and the "rationale" is trying to spine something that is in the introduction and that doesn't mention implicitly or explicitly and there is one phrase that is clear that " It is essential that every file can be found by browsing the category structure.". If every file should be browsed using the category structure, what is more proper? Having a proper category or being lost in a category with hundreds of other files, like you FredWalsh are attempting to make. Also why, when there are several categories with a single file, you concentrate in categories related with pornography? Was not enough that you tried to make the same thing 4 years ago and it was rejected in Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/06/Category:Single item categories? Tm (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, so one category I created was proposed for deletion and therefore I should go cower in a corner. Grow up Tm. Read the policies and apply them rather than your personal rules. Have a look at each nomination I have made. Not one was for this imaginary "anti-pornography" crusade you keep referring to. Almost every single file or category was deleted for policy reasons. The fact that you don’t like a policy is your problem. Feel free to request a change of policy. FredWalsh (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Grown up yourself and read again the policies and not your own personal tastes and bias and if you think that categories should have more than one item "feel free to request a change of policy" (and all persons that commented against your assertatiosn in the categories discussions that you have opened), and read again ten times the Category discussion and you will see that there was not an proposition to delete this category and in fact was moved to a category that has been empty for the last four years in Category:Single item categories (User:FredWalsh). Like an administrator said 4 years ago, "leave us a note when your crusade is done so that we can clean up the crumbs". Tm (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• I started an essay at Commons:Category inclusion criteria and comments might be helpful there. The question is is it helpful to have a category with only 1 image. If the people are notable (or at least there is some reasonable coverage) then we might keep the categories since its likely at least there will be more files in the future. If there is doubts about inclusion then maybe the images should be nominated for deletion since if deleted the categories would be automatically deleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Okki, BMacZero, FredWalsh, Tm, and Mutter Erde: I've taken the liberty of moving your following comments to this page to centralize discussion of this issue. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the number of media available, each notable person should systematically have her own category. In the categories place of birth, year of birth, profession, school attended... it's much cleaner to have sub-categories with people's names rather than thousands of photos in bulk. Okki (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

This is your personal feeling but it is not the policy agreed by the Commons community. If you wish to change the policy, please request it in an RFC. FredWalsh (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Okki. I have not generally seen that part of the category policy interpreted that way; if the policy was trying to say "categories must have more than one image", that would be stated explicitly. We do discourage categories with very few images in cases where they might demonstrate over-diffusion, but there is a sound structural reason to have this category. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Deleting this category is adding one more item that in the future will be again have this same category and this category with Wikidata item and 10 articles. And nothing in this policy prohibits the existance that a category to have only one image. Also why, when there are several categories with a single file, you concentrate in categories related with pornography? Tm (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Read the words of the policy carefully - it states the plural. FredWalsh (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Read the the policy that "It is essential that every file can be found by browsing the category structure." and do not shove your personal opinion. Tm (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It is very unlikely we will get new files for this category. Why? Mutter Erde (talk) 05:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mutter Erde: She has been active in adult entertainment since 1983 - about 37 years. We have one freely-licensed photo of her, from 2006. If there is only one photo in 37 years for an entertainer who is already 55 years old, I think the chances of getting one more photo are very unlikely. FredWalsh (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Racquel Darrian's category will be very crowded some day, even when you have to wait for 100 years. She has 13 wikipedia-articles and has made 102 movies plus countless pictorials in magazines as "Penthouse," "Hustler," "Playboy," "Velvet," and "Cheri.... (Source: IMdB). Mutter Erde (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

13, mostly brief, articles sourced to unreliable websites. I look forward to her Greatest Hits album in ten years time but despite all this "glory", we have just one free-to-reuse photo of her. That fact seems to consistently evade all the ardent fans arguing for her category to stay. I keep citing actual policies but in return get a barrage of "Why not"? FredWalsh (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that the outcome of this discussion should apply to a number of other similar discussions that can be found at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2020/05. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep My belief is that for individual people, either they are sufficiently notable (in a Commons sense) to get their own category, or they are non-notable and all their images should be deleted per COM:SCOPE. (Note: This applies to public figures only, not pictures of random people that may have illustrative merit.) For me there is no middle ground of "sure, we can keep your picture up, but you don't get a category". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• @King of Hearts: as you state, this is your belief and I can respect that. Could you also address the deletion reason - the policy states that categories are for multiple pages, rather than a single page. FredWalsh (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• That is an incredibly literal reading of the policy. In most cases, when a word is used in the plural it includes the case of only one item unless it is explicitly excluded. For example, take the sentence: "I will go to the party and say hi to the other people there." If only one other person shows up, do you not say hi to them because they are technically not "people"? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Your example is not a good one. You should say hi for social reasons but not for the singular/plural reason you’re suggesting. It is as simple as this - Commons is filled with single-item categories - partly due to people creating them because they think it’s obligatory. Wherever a category I’ve nominated has had a second page legitimately added to it, I’ve withdrawn the nomination. Deep down, what I’m really doing is challenging people to find a second free-to-reuse file to go in the category and make my DR redundant. Look at the history of this category - four years without a second file added, more than 13 years since Dirty Bob licensed the photo. There is a policy called Commons:EVIDENCE, which is about the burden of proof lying with those who want to keep a photo on Commons. The same burden should lie with those who want to keep this and similar categories. Yet what I get is a barrage of "why not?” FredWalsh (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• This reminds me of people who wikilawyer over inclusive vs. exclusive or when interpreting Wikipedia policies and guidelines. When used without further context, "or" should generally be taken to be inclusive. Likewise, a definition of something as a collection of things generally allows for it to contain just one thing, e.g. Set (mathematics). Everyone else here interprets the policy differently from you, so I think you should drop the stick and accept that your interpretation of policy is unorthodox. By the way, COM:EVIDENCE applies to files, not categories. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• And what you’re doing here is not wiklawyering? How about pointing to some Comins-policy-based reasons for keeping rather than pointing to WP? I didn’t say COM:EVID applied to categories, just that it should. FredWalsh (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• I am not pointing to any WP policies; I am pointing to informational pages about rhetorical techniques which apply equally here. We are pointing to the same Commons policy, COM:CAT, and coming to different conclusions about it. When multiple interpretations of the same text are possible, absent further clarification the common-sense interpretation should prevail, and the one who stands in the way of that interpretation is wikilawyering. It is often not possible to tell prima facie which is the common-sense interpretation, so the best you can do is poll a bunch of people and see how they would most naturally understand it. While discussions are not a vote, the fact that everyone else has read the same text differently from you is a pretty good indication. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• I didn’t say you were pointing at WP policies, just you have twice pointed to WP pages to make an argument here. The common-sense interpretation would be that one is singular and two or more is plural. By the way, when you say everyone, I assume you are not including the admins who deleted the pages I have nominated for deletion before. This is not a lonely crusade I’m on. If you could take a look at any DR I have started, it has always been based on policy, rather than the vague accusations made here and elsewhere that I am "anti-porn". FredWalsh (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep Categories are literally required to be included in a VI scope if a person with only one photo on Commons is nominated on COM:VIC. Deleting this will set a dangerous precedent for all single-file categories, and will just damage COM:VIC and probably other projects. I really don't see what we will gain here from deleting this category. --pandakekok9 03:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Pandakekok9: Commons:Valued image criteria #6 talks about categorization at an appropriate level. It does not say the image should have its own category. Please could you address the deletion reason - the policy uses the plural, not the singular. FredWalsh (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

So you think that my creation of Category:Franz Georg Timmesfeld is wrong? pandakekok9 01:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pandakekok9: Ok, well let's examine that category then. Criterion 6 says:

"Is well categorized at an appropriate level.

Leaving aside the hidden categories, the category is itself listed under four categories, each of which could quite easily be used for the photo (Category:1943 births, Category:Franz (given name), Category:Mathematicians from Germany, Category:20th-century mathematicians)

"The image should normally be categorized to a reasonable specific level (that is, if a specific category is available the image should be put into that, and not into a higher-level category).

"Reasonable" is a subjective word but the categories listed just above are reasonable categories. A specific category was not available at the time but it does not say that such a category should be created.

Several categories should be used if appropriate, at least one of which should relate in some fairly direct way to the claimed scope (although it need not be the same).

As above, four categories would have been appropriate for the photo. Two of those are highly relevant (the mathematician ones).

If no suitable categories currently exist, the nominator should create them before nominating. Images may optionally be added to any relevant content-related gallery.

This is where I believe you may have misunderstood the criterion. Just before you created Category:Franz Georg Timmesfeld, there were four suitable categories already in existence (the ones listed above). It does not say that you should create a specific category for the file, just that you should create them IF no suitable ones exist.

Linking that back to my assertion that the policy literally uses the plural, I think you should not have created that category. FredWalsh (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Pandakekok9: Your creation of Category:Franz Georg Timmesfeld was a good thing, and thank you for it. That even such a clear-cut instance of good curation can be challenged under this bizarre quibble shows how anti-pr0n worriors are ready to dammage the project to get to their goal: Since they cannot have all images of pornstars deleted they go for categories, and if along with minor pornstars they find objectionable the deletionist hammer falls down also on mathematicians — that seems to be collateral dammage some can accept. Now here’s an interesting thought experiment: What would have happened if instead of Category:Bunny Bleu this CfD had been raised against Category:Franz Georg Timmesfeld? How long would have it taken for this discussion to be closed and its proponent firmly trouted? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Tuvalkin: can you point to a single deletion request where I used "pornography" as a deletion rationale? I am asking you to politely withdraw your allegation that I am anti-porn. On the contrary all of my successful nominations have been for policy-based reasons such as copyright. Yes, I know copyright is inconvenient for you but it is Wikimedia Commons, not Wiki-Tuvalkin. FredWalsh (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• @FredWalsh: Thanks, I guess, for inspiring the mental image that you’re an avid pornography fan instead, but frankly I don’t care eitherway: No matter what is motivating your disruption attempts, they need to stop — you’re wasting everybody’s time and atttracting deletionist vandalism. Now, politely explain what the heck do you mean when you say that you «know copyright is inconvenient for» me. Now, that’s an unexpected accusation, to say the least… Or then again, don’t even bother: Your trolling is transparent and unappreciated. I will ignore your further pinging. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• So you waited two weeks since my last comment to again accuse me of one extreme (being anti-porn) and when I ask you to withdraw the accusation, you immediately swing to the other extreme and accuse me of being pro-porn. That is trolling behaviour because you cannot accept that I might be neither fit or against pornography. My mention of copyright being inconvenient is because you don’t acknowledge that copyright (rather than pornography) is the basis of most of the deletion nominations I have made. Instead the "anti-porn" argument is a safety blanket for any DR even remotely related to photos you’d prefer to see kept. What you don’t seem to accept is that the overwhelming majority of my DRs resulted in deletion by admins. Perhaps multiple administrators were also wrong in their interpretations of the DRs? FredWalsh (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment: As already mentioned above, please compare this CfD with Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/06/Category:Single item categories. @Achim55 and Auntof6: might be of interest. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@BMacZero: this is the sort of response I got the last time I tried to group these kinds of nominations together. My only intention at the time was to tag these categories together and create one nomination but I immediately got jumped by those who think copyright is a trivial issue. Despite beating a dead horse as Tuvalkin is doing, the result was that I moved the category to a sort of pseudo-userspace. FredWalsh (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@FredWalsh: I don't think anyone here is criticizing how this request is formatted (though they should correct me if I'm wrong); they mostly seem to be criticizing your motivations for opening these requests in the first place. I would suggest to everyone that it's not very useful to discuss FredWalsh's motivations here; this is a discussion about a category and we are creating a lot of irrelevant banter a closing user is going to have to wade through. FredWalsh, I would suggest that you make sure you're willing to change your belief about the category policy if it turns out to be wrong. No user here (and there are many) has agreed with your interpretation, yet you're continuing to push the exact same arguments on each new user who responds. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

logs of cat:Mia Khalifa show how frustrating and unnecessary it is to press for deletion of categories that can be reasonably soon populated. in oct 2019 four youtube videos of Mia Khalifa were made cc-by, and so the cat could easily be filled with multiple files.

it's fairly easy to obtain free files for living persons and contemporary events.

as such, i suggest, if a category is expected to receive free files reasonably easily, and the category corresponds to pages on other wiki projects, such a category should be allowed to exist, even if there are zero files in it.--RZuo (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

---

centralized discussion is taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03/Category:Sunny Leone in 2002 Estopedist1 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)