Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:Nipple slip

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.

Category:Nipple slip

Dubious category conflating various things; voyeuristic without objective useful definition. Described as "accidental nudity"; most images do not show "accidental" and the few that do are likely violations of privacy rights of those photographed.

Details: Firstly I note that I am not in favor of prudery and censorship on Commons. (Personally I even object to conceding that a woman's nipples being visible can legitimately be described as "nudity", but that definition is a discussion for elsewhere.) Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nipple slip brought out what I consider inherent problems with this category. It is the intersection of Categories "Accidental nudity" and "Female nipples" (presumable male nipples are incapable of "slipping"; unclear if the "female nipples" need to be human). A good number of images in the category show pornographic actresses at "adult film industry" events in outfits with exposed nipples (is this really "accidental"? Do they play a game of "oops, my nipples are showing, oh no"?). Other images currently in the category an African girl in traditional attire with a visible nipple (apparently we are to ignore that different societies may not have identical cultural attitudes), a 19th century "Marianne" caricature with traditional exposed breast, some posed models, a 19th century drawing of a woman undressing to go to bed... all dubious as a "slip" creating "accidental nudity". As the few cases where it is accidental, when a woman's breast is unintentionally exposed in a context where such is not considered socially acceptable, as the linked deletion request points out, such photos seem to violate COM:DIGNITY, being personality-rights violating paparazzi type shots for voyeurism. I think Commons is better off without this category. (Unsurprisingly there are already multiple other categories for women's nipples, and more specific ones can be created if anyone thinks they should be.. might something "Marianne with breast out" be useful? The "accidental nudity" category seems unobjectionable, judging from the two images currently there.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

P.S.: I am not proposing deletion of images within this category (IMO they should be dealt with on individual cases); I am proposing deletion of this category as a dubiously named and defined basket of images of very different circumstances. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not dubious, it describes what it is. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@TwoWings: About how many of the images currently in the category do you think are so categorized correctly? Wondering, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Most of them. But I have other things to do rather than losing time to discuss about such things. You want to question anything? Be my guest if you like to do that. I don't think that kind of discussion is constructive so I won't bother. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The comment by @TwoWings was short, concise and accurate, just like their comment at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/06/Category:Upskirt in sports (which I think is related to this discussion).

Below are some comments on the nomination.

The English Wikipedia article Nipple slip is a redirect to Wardrobe malfunction, which is defined as:

a clothing failure that accidentally or intentionally exposes a person's intimate parts.

Replace "intimate parts" with "nipples" and you have a reasonable definition of "nipple slip".

Of course this category should not be in Accidental nudity, just as Females without brassieres should not be in Eroticism (see revision 602359900). But this is hardly a reason to delete this category.

It should not be in Female nipples either. We have Male nipples through clothing and Male nipples through transparent clothing; we can certainly have male nipple slips too.

Female nipples is in Human nipples, so yes, they need to be human. (In fact, judging from Nipples, Commons lacks non-human nipples of any description.)

In many images, the nipple exposure seems to be intentional. This is still a nipple slip, just as intentional exposure under a skirt is still an upskirt.

Does the phrase "19th century drawing of a woman undressing to go to bed" refer to File:Export(199).jpg? This just looks like the straps falling down a bit. It does not look like she is attempting to undress, and she is not "topless" (I have removed this file from Topless standing women in art).

As far as categorisation goes, I only see one image that might be a problem: File:Girl, Uganda (15566595376).jpg. But it might not be. We should judge this situation not on the local culture regarding nipple exposure, but rather the garment's intention. Without knowing anything specific about this garment, I note that it does cover one nipple, and looks like it might be designed to cover both.

Regarding dignity, I wrote at the deletion discussion:

I think that, in many cases, people would not even notice the accidentally revealed nipple/underwear/whatever unless they went looking for it. Now, we are asking them to go looking, for the purpose of editing the image. This seems like a problem.

Finally, a somewhat random thought: we have a category called Protruding hair; should we have Protruding nipples? Brianjd (talk) 09:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Going to take issue with that Wikipedia definition of wardrobe malfunction as "accidental or intentional" as I wrote here: en:Talk:Wardrobe malfunction. Either it's an article about a term or an article about a phenomenon. The term may have been appropriated, jokingly, to also mean something that wasn't accidental, but the definitions I'm seeing of the actual phenomenon don't include "intentional" (e.g. Oxford Languages says an instance of a person accidentally exposing an intimate part of their body as a result of an article of clothing slipping out of position., Collins Dictionary says an embarrassing situation caused by the clothes a person is wearing, and Dictionary.com an instance of a piece of clothing slipping, ripping, etc., and causing embarrassment for the wearer: - presumably an intentional act doesn't "cause embarrassment"). Like "upskirt", that some people have intentionally exposed themselves or consented to a photo up their skirt to look like the voyeuristic [genres?] doesn't mean they are actually that. A "nipple slip" that isn't accidental is just an exposed nipple. Nothing "slipped". — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Agree that we should not be hosting actual "nipple slips" but that many of these could go in a different category. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree, and IMO important point. Almost none of the images now in the category are, in your words, actual "nipple slips". To be accurate, almost all the images might legitimately be categorized as something to do with women's nipples. (Is there a term for what the porn actresses do in many of the photos in this category - not technically topless, nor "nipple slip", but rather wearing tops that intentionally display nipples?) Returning to the point that "we should not be hosting actual "nipple slips"": add that to properly categorizing the images currently dubiously misplaced in this category, and we have an empty category. It would be likely to remain empty, unless perhaps someone produces some artwork depicting a fictional woman in a fictional incident of "nipple slip", and that illustration was agreed to be within project scope. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• This is "Categories for discussion". I am to suggestions as to how to deal with problems with this category other than deletion (though as explained above, I think that would likely make this category empty). Again, most image in this category do not fit the category's own definition. Suggestions for more accurate categorization? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd like to suggest creating a category "Women wearing clothing with bare nipples". This would be much more accurate for many of the images currently in the "Nipple slip" category. I'm open to suggestions for improved wording. Perhaps a subcategory "Porn actresses wearing clothing with bare nipples", in line with existing Category:Topless porn actresses. Thoughts? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I have done so. As a result, this category is much less populated - although in re-categorizing images, I found one more image that may show an actual "nipple slip" that has been added here. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

      Convenience link: Women wearing clothing with bare nipples. I propose adding this to a category like Women by clothing or Nude or partially nude women by clothing (the latter seems more accurate and less likely to surprise readers, but "partial nudity" is not defined). I also propose renaming it to Women wearing tops with bare nipples (in line with the existing Nude or partially nude women wearing tops). Brianjd (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Closing discussion I opened. Creation of more exact categories, together with a couple of deletion requests of individual photos, have resulted in this category being thinly populated - at present with one photo which seems to be a posed photographer's model, but can be illustrative of the concept of "nipple slip" should anyone wish an illustration. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)