Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/11/Category:Sexy librarian meme

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Sexy librarian meme

[edit]

Commons is not a meme directory, even if the contents of the category were "memes". Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excuse me? Are you merely objecting to the name of this category? Or are you objecting to the commons having any images described as images of "sexy librarians"?
If your concern is merely that you don't think categories should contain the word "meme", is there a reason you haven't suggested an alternate name?
Otherwise, do you think you could offer a substantive, policy based explanation as to why we should not carry images described as images of "sexy librarians"?
Geo Swan (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I  Support the deletion of this cat and the out of scope files that make it up. "Sexy librarian meme"? I never understood very well what "meme" means in English; in my native tongue, the word is used for tits or nipples (elements that help to be sexy :). I believe there is no "librarian" figure here. If the librarian does not have anything like a book, newspapers, book files etc around, how do we understand he or she is a librarian? If we need sexy librarians, we should picture a lady in some decollete and/or mini skirts sitting on books, for example; or a male librarian, a handsome guy carrying books "topless". Then I would consider those as pictures of "sexy librarians". --E4024 (talk) 07:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with our nominator, if the concern over the category is just its name, then please suggest an alternate name.
  • Since I am working on a draft of a wikipedia article on the topic of the sexy librarian, I really can't understand how anyone can argue images that could illustrate that article are not in scope. Even if, for the sake of argument, I choose to add that coverage to an article related to librarians, rather than create a standalone article, the images would still be in scope.
  • As for your question as to how we know the women in these images are supposed to be seen as sexy librarians? The photographers explicitly characterized them as sexy librarians.
Geo Swan (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Il me semble que des commentaires supplémentaires sont voulus de moi. Ce n'est pas seulement le nom qui cause des inquiètes, c'est l'idée de cette catégorie. On n'a pas une Catégorie:Beaux bateaux, car c'est subjectif comme nom. Je me sens un peu comme M. Zuckerberg quand il a décrit comment Facebook fonctionne a Congrès... mais ces images ne sont pas un "meme" - faire référence à ici pour des exemples de memes. La catégorie est inexacte et en mauvais goût, j'attends plus de jugement des personnes impliquées dans l'entretien de cette catégorie. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran Jon Kolbert's reply through google translate. He seems to be saying the current title is "inaccurate" -- but has continued to not reply to my request of November 17th that he offer an alternate title.
He also claims the title is in bad taste... at least that is how google translate translates him. Bad taste? Then how come scholars, who are actual librarians, have written about this meme/archetype/stock-character/whatever in scholarly journals, without making any claims it is in bad taste?
Geo Swan (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "La catégorie est inexacte et en mauvais goût" does not refer to the title but to the essence of the cat, as "inaccurate and bad taste". I speak very little French, even less than Google, and it is crystal clear. Regards. --E4024 (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jon Kolbert: you list yourself in your user page a native English speaker; you nominated this CfD in English; this discussion has been held in English so far; this cat name itself is in English — and why on Earth did you switch to French when you come here to clarify your position as asked? This is anything else than a mean spirited way to try to confuse the matter? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: non sequitur. Translation software is improving these days, but it still can be hilariously (or horribly) incorrect on occasion.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment perhaps some explanatory text could be added, to address part of Jon Kolbert’s concern that membership is too subjective, saying something to the effect that included files should only be those intended to illustrate the meme or stereotype, according to their original titles or descriptions, not just anything that looks like it might belong.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Odysseus1479: I'm sure you're familiar with {{Sofixit}}. :)   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I actually knew anything about the topic I might do so, but I only feel qualified to make a tentative suggestion. Moreover others might regard it as no more than the proverbial rearrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, Odysseus1479, if you can see something meaningful in Jon Kolbert's stated concerns, would you lay it out for me? I've done my best to find something substantive, and haven't found it.

    If you were just being polite... did you see where they responded to a request to explain themself more fully with a reply in French that practically everyone else found cryptic? Geo Swan (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: I was addressing the part of the objection that said the category is too subjective, that the meme is ill-defined. Not being at all involved with social media, I have little idea of what qualifies as a meme in that context; I just thought an explanatory note might help clarify the category’s scope.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan and Jeff G.: If we are to close, are you all okay with a move to either Category:Sexy librarian (stock character) or Category:Sexy librarian archetype? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Odysseus1479: Same? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I would prefer the former; “archetype” implies to me something more universal, the kind of psychological symbol that appears across cultures and times. I suppose there might be some kind of archetype to be found behind the character, if one digs deep enough, but this manifestation at least belongs to modern Western popular culture.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill:  Support closure and either name.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't we regard your decision to not offer meaningful replies to the questions placed to you as a tacit acknowledgement that the pair of you found you are unwilling or unable to try to offer meaningful replies to the questions placed to you?
Genuine consensus depends on a fair, thoughtful meaningful exchange of views. I try to enter every discussion with an open mind over whether the other side may be correct, after all. I think I do an okay job at that.
Sadly, often consensus is interpreted differently here. There are plenty of discussions here, where a bunch of individuals baldly state their views, ignoring the counter-arguments of the minority position, and called it a "consensus" because their position outnumbered the minority position. Over on en.wiki I wrote an essay Every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment. In my opinion, if you hold a majority view, even an almost overwhelming majority view, there are still good reasons for trying to engage with those with the minority view. First, how are they going to learn what is wrong with their counter-arguments, if you don't explain it to them; second, there is a possibility they might be right, after all.
I am not a mind-reader, so I can't really know what motivates you and Jon Kolbert. I'll state what it looks like though. It looks like the two of you assumed yours would be the majority position, which you could state, baldly, while ignoring the counter-arguments, and, counting on being in the majority, never have to look closely at your position. However you were then surprised to find you were in the minority position.
In my opinion, when someone finds they don't have a counter-argument to a reasonable, substantive challenge, they should openly admit that.
I try my best to do that, and I think I do an okay job at that.
Jon Kolbert, I think I should feel entitled to expect the project's administrators to set an example of good behavior, so I think you should also be setting an example of collegiality. Maybe you thought, back in 2017, that you really could voice good counter-arguments, if only you had more time. Okay, say that. However, why shouldn't I think you are failing to honor your obligation to set a good example of collegiality by your silence here?
E4024's comment, above, seems to imply that when no administrator closes a discussion, consensus can be stalled by those in the minority view refusing to answer meaningful good faith questions, and, simultaneously not acknowledging that they are unwilling or unable to answer those good faith questions. I am going to suggest, however, that when those in the majority have tried hard to work towards a consensus, and the minority view goes AWOL, it is perfectly appropriate to regard their silence as a tacit acknowledgement they have no meaningful counter-arguments, and their earlier objections are now moot. Geo Swan (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You recently closed the discussions of several other images that were in this category. You closed them as "delete", but I couldn't help noticing you did not offer a closing statement, explaining your closure.
Did it occur to you that your comment here would seem like it was based on a gut feeling, not based on actually thinking about relevant policy issues? So, if you thought there were policy based reasons for your position, would you consider returning here and making an effort to voice that policy based position?
Since the normal procedure for relatively prompt closure seems to have broken down here I am going to wait a reasonable period of time, and if no one offers a reasoned policy-based response, I am going to place a {{Move}} template on the category page, with a reason field saying something like:
Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/11/Category:Sexy librarian meme was opened almost a year and a half ago. IMO policy based arguments have been made to either keep or rename the category. IMO, arguments for outright deletion were weak, seemed like they were based on "gut feelings". The minority who favoured deletion seem to have opted to not make the effort to explain themselves further, when asked civil good faith questions.

So, I suggest the category be renamed Category:Sexy librarians (stock character), a new name with support at the discussion.

Pinging Jon Kolbert, E4024, Themightyquill, Jeff G., Tuvalkin, Alexis Jazz, Odysseus1479, Davey2010, Abzeronow, Yann Geo Swan (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1 - This has baffled me and if Yann has deleted more images then they need to restore all images and redo another DR, You can't go against consensus just because you don't like the image,
The category was serving a purpose before Yann's intervention and given there's policy based reasons to keep the images as well as the cats I see no reason to delete neither. –Davey2010Talk 23:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as keep per discussion above Gbawden (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Moved to Category:Sexy librarians (stock character). --Achim (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2017/11/Category:Sexy_librarian_meme&oldid=441830871"