Last modified on 13 June 2014, at 17:47

Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/07/Category:Female breasts of humans

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

Category:Female breasts of humansEdit

To be blunt, I've always hated this category name (no offense to the original creator). It is very awkward when compared to most other nudity-related categories. (BTW, same can be said about Category:Female breasts of humans in art and Category:Male breasts of humans, created by the same user.) I'm guessing this was created as a more "anatomical" alternative to Category:Breasts, based on the original parent categories chosen, but that doesn't seem to be how it's currently being used. In fact, the subcats of Category:Breasts are more "anatomical" or "medical" than those of the category under discussion! I propose either chosing a new name than can be used for "anatomical" or "medical" types of images of breasts (not sure what that would be), or simply merging/redirecting the contents to Category:Breasts. - dcljr (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely the correct title would be "Breasts of Female Humans" , ditto "Breasts of Male Humans" - breast don't have a sex independent of owner (grammar) Imgaril (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Imgaril. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. While I agree with Imgaril's grammatical analysis, the suggested renaming doesn't really fix the problem that there's no clear conceptual separation of Category:Breasts and the other category, regardless of what it's called. The more I try to come up with a solution that preserves (/clarifies) the distinction, the more I'm convinced that it can't be preserved. In other words, I recommend that we:
  1. merge Category:Female breasts of humans into Category:Breasts (after which other changes to subcats of the latter category can be considered, as necessary)
  2. rename Category:Female breasts of humans in art to Category:Human breasts in art
  3. rename Category:Male breasts of humans to Category:Breasts (male)
(BTW, note that Category:Female breasts of humans in art is a subcat of Category:Breasts in art, which itself contains "abstract" or "non-realistic" depictions of "breasts"; this is why #2 is a rename and not simply a merge into Category:Breasts in art.)
Does anyone object to this course of action? - dcljr (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes I do object. Breasts are not anatomic parts that are exclusive to women (even if we instinctively think of women first when we see this world). And Commons (+ Wikipedia) have that mission to stand by the correct truth/information. Moreover your argument of the wrong categorization is not valid : it just means the categorization is uncorrect ! Therefore there's no reason to reproduce this common mistake that lead to think only women have breasts. The best category tree should be :
  1. rename Category:Female breasts of humans into Category:Breasts of female humans (or Category:Human female breasts ? or Category:Female human breasts ? We just have to chose the best one)
  2. rename Category:Male breasts of humans to Category:Breasts of male humans
  3. rename Category:Female breasts of humans in art into Category:Breasts of female humans in art and move it into Category:Breasts of female humans (and maybe in Category:Breasts of humans in art to be created)
We have to be correct and logical. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. But does your argument extend to nipples and areolas, along with all the similarly named (sub)cats (e.g., Category:Inverted nipple, Category:Breast cancer, etc.)? And what about the huge number of other anatomical categories that could apply to humans and non-humans (especially other mammals)? Would you recommend creating a "human" category (when it doesn't already exist) for every single such category (Category:Vulva, Category:Penis, Category:Clitoris, Category:Testicles, Category:Buttocks, Category:Legs, Category:Feet, Category:Toes, Category:Hands, Category:Fingers, Category:Nails, etc.)? If yes, that's fine: I just want to be clear what your position is. - dcljr (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
OK, let's just concentrate on the naming of the "human" categories (under Category:Breasts). Since there are subcats that apply to all animals (including humans) having "breasts", some that apply to humans (male and female) but not (?) other animals, and some that apply to female humans and not male humans, it seems to me that we need a "human" subcat of Category:Breasts, and then the "female" and "male" subcats under that. In other words:

Although the first option in each case does have the nice property that each builds on the parent category's name in a "logical" way that would help with searching and when using tools like HotCat, I actually don't like the first options (in all cases) because (1) they're slightly more wordy, and (2) I prefer using "female" as an adjective rather than a noun (as an aside, see the comments at Category talk:Females). The second options in each of the last two cases were suggested above; does everyone (commenting here) still agree with those? And what about the second case (2nd bullet point)? I say the second option. What say others? And should any of the other options be redirects (which help when using HotCat)? - dcljr (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the debate was about the gender. I agree that we could drop the "human" and only keep "Male breasts" and "Female breasts". --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I note that an anonymous IP user has removed the CFD tag from this category. I haven't been following, but that seems rather unorthodox. On the other hand, this has gone over 10 months without comment, so I leave it to someone who was working on this to decide what best to do. - Jmabel ! talk 02:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


Both the female and male versions of this category have been moved to the "[gender] human [body part]" formula, which seems to be the formula in wide use. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)