Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Category:Superstraight
As far as I'm aware the whole "Super Straight" thing was mainly a transphobic internet meme that never took off. All the images in the category seem to be completely made up or copyrighted to. As there is no "Super Straight" flag outside of a few internet transphobic online message boards. It's by no means official or widely used outside of transphobic circles though. So my suggestion is that the images in this category be deleted along with files. Or at least the category be deleted and the files in it up-merged to Category:Controversial sexual and gender identities. I don't think we need a whole category just for a bunch of duplicate images of a transphobic and fake meme flag though. Adamant1 (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep the overall vibe I get is “I find this offensive”. Commons isn’t censored, so that’s invalid. There are plenty of absolutely non-notable made-up orientations and pride flags here so the argument that a concept we know exists “in the wild” is too obscure to be covered is also invalid. And even if you deleted a bunch of redundant ones you’d still have enough for a category. Also none of these files are copyrightable, even the google trends chart which is simple facts and data shown in an auto-generated graph that required no creative effort. Dronebogus (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Your vibe is wrong. I could really care less about it personally outside of it not being an actual, official concept. Nor do the files even really have anything to do with it either. Since again, the flag is completely fictional and that's essentially all there is in the category. Nice try making this about me though. I'd like to think it would be possible to discuss the actual merits of having a category for something like this without you treating me like I started it just because I'm offended by the thing. You can't just use Commons not being censored or hide behind fake claims of my feelings about this as an excuse to keep a category that serves no purpose and goes against the projects goals either. That's not how this works.
- I think you could make an argument for keeping the category if it contained files that were actually about the whole "superstright" thing to begin with. But there's no point in having one for it if the only things on here related to the concept is a couple of images of fake flags. There's no reason they can't just be upmerged. The category is essentially worthless when it comes to anything actually having to do with the "superstraight" thing though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Firstly, there is no need to get inordinately offended about me saying I think you’re offended. Secondly, It’s not an “actual official concept”, but it is an actual hoax/neologism. Thirdly, there’s no need to try and delete a category that you’re currently trying to empty anyway. As long as at least two images exist the category is valid. If most or all the images are deleted, then of course the category would serve no purpose. But right now this is purely redundant. Dronebogus (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- "it is an actual hoax/neologism." Is it though and how would that even matter? Neologisms aren't inherently worth having seperate cateogries for and this has been around for at least a few years now with essentially zero buy in for it outside of a couple of posts on 4chan. If you look for "superstraight flag" on Google image search there doesn't seem to be any images of the "flags" actually being used IRL anywhere either. So I really don't see how this is an actual thing outside of being a barely notable meme. It wouldn't even be that much to begin with if not for the transphobic element. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I’m done responding to you here. You can answer me on the individual DRs. I stand by my assertion that this is a pointless and invalid nomination because the category is still serving an objective purpose. Dronebogus (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- OK. I'd still appreciate an answer about why you wouldn't support the images that are left after the DRs being upmerged though since I think I've provided plenty of evidence for why its not an actual thing regardless of if there are images related to it or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I’m done responding to you here. You can answer me on the individual DRs. I stand by my assertion that this is a pointless and invalid nomination because the category is still serving an objective purpose. Dronebogus (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- "it is an actual hoax/neologism." Is it though and how would that even matter? Neologisms aren't inherently worth having seperate cateogries for and this has been around for at least a few years now with essentially zero buy in for it outside of a couple of posts on 4chan. If you look for "superstraight flag" on Google image search there doesn't seem to be any images of the "flags" actually being used IRL anywhere either. So I really don't see how this is an actual thing outside of being a barely notable meme. It wouldn't even be that much to begin with if not for the transphobic element. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Firstly, there is no need to get inordinately offended about me saying I think you’re offended. Secondly, It’s not an “actual official concept”, but it is an actual hoax/neologism. Thirdly, there’s no need to try and delete a category that you’re currently trying to empty anyway. As long as at least two images exist the category is valid. If most or all the images are deleted, then of course the category would serve no purpose. But right now this is purely redundant. Dronebogus (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think you could make an argument for keeping the category if it contained files that were actually about the whole "superstright" thing to begin with. But there's no point in having one for it if the only things on here related to the concept is a couple of images of fake flags. There's no reason they can't just be upmerged. The category is essentially worthless when it comes to anything actually having to do with the "superstraight" thing though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
one flagfour flags must be kept, asit isthey are Commons:In use. Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- @RodRabelo7: Can you point out where the guidelines say us not being censored has anything to do with the existence of specific categories? Because I must have missed that. Also, where exactly have I said this has anything to with it being offensive? You and Dronebogus seem to be the only one's who are making it about that. Not that I disagree that we don't censor things, but I don't see why any particular category or file should be kept simply because it relates to the topic of gender somehow. Yet unless I'm miss understanding you that seems to be your and Dronebogus' only argument against up merging the images to a better category. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Can you point out where the guidelines say us not being censored has anything to do with the existence of specific categories?
- It doesn't, that's why I used "besides".
- Also, where exactly have I said this has anything to with it being offensive?
- I'd say when you used the word "transphobic" five times throughout this discussion.
- Can you point out where the guidelines say us not being censored has anything to do with the existence of specific categories?
- RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe it's just an American English thing, but to me "besides" has the connotation of "in addition to." In other words, "in addition to the fact that Commons is not censored, if we analyze its existence in a purely technical manner" makes it sound like your saying the category should be kept because we anti-censorship "in addition to" the technical aspects. I don't really see why you'd bring it if you didn't think it was relevant to keeping the category or not either. Thanks for clarifying it though.
- @RodRabelo7: Can you point out where the guidelines say us not being censored has anything to do with the existence of specific categories? Because I must have missed that. Also, where exactly have I said this has anything to with it being offensive? You and Dronebogus seem to be the only one's who are making it about that. Not that I disagree that we don't censor things, but I don't see why any particular category or file should be kept simply because it relates to the topic of gender somehow. Yet unless I'm miss understanding you that seems to be your and Dronebogus' only argument against up merging the images to a better category. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- The "transphobic" thing is simply a description of the origins of the thing. Since I think the context is important to the question of it deserves a separate, individual category outside of other non-notable, niche memes on here that don't have one. The claim that my mention of it being transphobic has anything to do with it being offensive is simply you reading to much into it. As I already mentioned to Dronebogous "I could really care less about it personally outside of it not being an actual, official concept." --Adamant1 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. In order to make it clear, I'll try to rewrite it: "It should be ignored whether the sexuality in question is notable or not, whether it is offensive or not, whether it is a product of the far-right or not; Commons is not censored, period. [Furthermore,] if we analyze its existence [blah blah blah]." RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- The "transphobic" thing is simply a description of the origins of the thing. Since I think the context is important to the question of it deserves a separate, individual category outside of other non-notable, niche memes on here that don't have one. The claim that my mention of it being transphobic has anything to do with it being offensive is simply you reading to much into it. As I already mentioned to Dronebogous "I could really care less about it personally outside of it not being an actual, official concept." --Adamant1 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment does one paragraph in one article on Wikipedia justify an open-ended number of such images as being in scope? - Jmabel ! talk 19:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, and it’s not just “one paragraph in one article on Wikipedia”. In any case this is not the place to discuss files being in scope; this is about a category, and the category is clearly valid and useful as of now. Dronebogus (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)