Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:29, 21 July 2005

The second image, which still has the girls in it, can be found here: Image: The Vancouver Skybridge - Caution: Image contains nudity I've emailed Vancouver's Transit Authority to see if they have an image that we might use that would be more safe for someone to view at work or with children in the Prudish States of America. Dismas 20:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Awe, let's put it in the article. :p ¦ Reisio 01:08, 2005 July 14 (UTC)

Both pics are not actually of the bridge, they are of two topless girls that happen to have the bridge somewhere in the background. As I said before, I'm trying to get a picture of the bridge sans the topless girls. If this were an article about breasts I wouldn't mind the picture as much (afterall, it's not all that much of a textbook image even in that case) but this is about a bridge. I thought just having a link to the pic would suffice but someone else has a problem with that. So in the meantime, why don't we wait till we have a picture where the focus of the picture is the bridge? Dismas 17:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I just think it makes Misplaced Pages look like the product of ogling 14-year-old boys to have this picture in an article about a bridge. Obviously there are a number of articles where images of partially clothed people and even full nudity are properly displayed, but this should not be one of them. BTW, this image was previuosly at Topfree equality, where it was removed by someone because of seeming lack of direct relevance to that topic (see Talk:Topfree equality). The image is pretty unprofessional over all; I'd be hard-pressed to see what it illustrates besides toplessness (and that in a not particularly good way).--Pharos 17:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Prudishness

Look - the photo here has got the boobies that you were so worried about edited out! Stopping publication is censorship! Broonee 22:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Give me a break. There are dozens of images on Misplaced Pages much more revealing than those two. They're just not on articles about bridges.--Pharos 22:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Well, how about this one then Mister Censor? Broonee 12:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This is still a low quality photo. In general "tourist" photos, which contain some famous feature but have the tourist's companion prominently in the foreground, are not suitable photos to illustrate an encyclopedia. We want a photo of the bridge, and any person in the foreground is a problem.

If we leave this photo here, then there is less incentive to get a good photo, so I would prefer that this cropped photo be removed from the article.-gadfium 20:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I came here from RfC, where one of the people in this dispute wrote " Is it right for a Cabal of self-appointed CENSORS to REMOVE and VANDASLISE legitimate photographs of Vancouver Skybridge just because they are PRUDES?" (breaking the guidelines of RFC by singing with their name, not linking to the talk page and not making the summary neutral). Curious as to why a picture of a bridge would leading to accusations of prudery I view the article and read the talk page. Having done so I completely agree that this image is not suitable for the article, cropped or uncropped, because its not a picture of the bridge, it is a picture of two topless girls with the bridge in the background.

I have no issue with the nudity, indeed see my involvement in the discussion over this photograph at talk:Topfree equality, and with other photographs at talk:nudism. However, the criteria for an image's suitability include that it must be relevant and apropriate - this picture is neither.

• Relevant? In the case of this article, a picture needs to be of the bridge in question in order to be relevant, the focus of the picture is the girls, not the bridge.
• Apropriate? to be apropriate the image must first of all be relevant and it should not include things unrelated or likely to cuase offense (without reason). A photograph of nude people is apropriate on articles like nudism and topfree equality, but not here. Equally a photograph of an orthodox Jew is not apropriate on an article about arabs, an image of an arab with an orthodox Jew would be apropriate on articles about the arab-israli conflict, for example.

I have posted a picture request at talk:Vancouver in the hope that a native of the city or someone from that area will be able to take a photograph of it for us. Thryduulf 14:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that the photograph(s) with the girls are not relevant to an article about a bridge. -- BMIComp (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggested to remove the girls completely from the photo, rename the photo, and we could get some photos from http://images.google.com/images?q=Vancouver+Skybridge&hl=en. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Other photos to be removed

If you VANDASLISE my page, these SIMILAR photos should be VANDALISE and poked with a hot stick:

. Broonee 17:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• You fail to see the point Broonee. Those people aren't the focus of the picture and no one is going to object having these people in as they're not shocking to anyone. - Mgm| 08:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Caution

Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. Do not threaten to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. Robert McClenon 15:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Foreground and Background

On the one hand, it appears that the controversy has subsided because there is consensus to leave the questionable photo out.

On the other hand, there is a distinction in photography and any other representational art between foreground and background. In the questionable photo, the bridge was in the background, and the girls were in the foreground. If the bridge is the subject of the article, the bridge should be in the foreground, or it should be in mid-ground with nothing distracting in foreground.

Perhaps there needs to be a Misplaced Pages guideline to this effect. (I am aware that someone will ignore it, and once in a while there is reason to ignore a guideline.) Robert McClenon 15:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a good idea to have a Misplaced Pages guideline explaining the relevance of subjects in images.

•Zhatt• 16:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)