Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:05, 2 August 2005

Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

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)

Well, why isn't it over at topfree equality, then? It's not particularly relevant to the Vancouver Skybridge, but hey, I didn't know that women could go shirtless in British Columbia until I followed some links from here. And frankly, these pictures look a lot less "hey, I'm a model!" than the current illustration on topfree equality. I'd rather have these there, provided they're legitly acquired. grendel|khan 04:45, July 29, 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)

I'd say it's abundandly clear that the image is unsuitable. Broonee's response to this would seem to fall under WP:POINT byped 20:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I did fix his entry in the RfC so it sounded NPOV. But I agree, his/her response below really shows that he violted POINT. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The images are not appropriate. Gratuitous nudity is well ... gratuitous. Paul August ☎ 19:28, July 26, 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)

And, this is not your article/page, the article belongs to everyone. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:43, 22 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)

I agree. Paul August ☎ 19:24, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. We don't need a guideline for this; it's covered by a general common-sense test. Attempts to codify common sense are doomed. Doomed, I tell you! grendel|khan 04:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

It's not common-sense to all. Lots of people don't know a thing about photography, graphics or composition. It doesn't need to be strict, it's just something to point people to when we get into an argument like above.

•Zhatt• 16:25, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

If by "guideline", you didn't mean "policy", then by all means, no one's stopping you. There are plenty of pages explaining that, for instance, it's a bad idea to take line art that was converted to JPEG and convert it into PNG. But I still don't think we need one to say, "when you're taking a picture of a landmark, the picture should be of the landmark, not of your lady friends with the landmark in the background." If you're convinced that such a guideline is necessary because Broonee refused to be reasonable, then I should point out that there is considerable doubt that Broonee was acting in good faith---and if s/he wasn't, then why would s/he care about guidelines? Fluffing up the set of rules on Misplaced Pages is not a good idea. Rules should only be added in response to a clear and present need. One person playing dumb and making a ruckus is not a clear and present need. grendel|khan 16:47, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean. There can't be a guideline for every little bit of sillyness, such as "Don't write your articles backwards". I wasn't personaly going to make the guideline, I was just seconding Robert McClenon is he was going to start one. •Zhatt• 16:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, we could just call this a "suggestion." Misplaced Pages "suggests" that if your taking a photo of a landmark, try to make the landmark the focus of the picture, not of your friends infront of the landmark. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I suppose, if someone wanted to provide a nice set of "how to take good pictures of landmarks" article, it'd fit in there. Guidelines like "try to get the sun at your back, or take the picture on a cloudy day" as well as "remember, you're taking a picture of the monument, not of some dude standing in front of the monument". Or something helpful for the amateur photographer who would like to contribute pictures. But that issue's pretty disjoint from the one we were discussing. Broonee's uploading an image called "two topless girls" and claiming that it's a picture of a bridge isn't an example of acting in good faith; don't make policy around him. grendel|khan 21:37, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

No, of course it would not directly derive from this arguemnt. But how does one go about making a Misplaced Pages "suggestion"? It now sounds intresting and I'd like to start/work on it, but I don't know a lot about photography.

•Zhatt• 21:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Image

Even if a better image of the bridge can be found, this image should be kept. With no other images whatsoever, the idea of removing it is absurd. Finially, there is no excuse or policy precedent for censoring of this perfectly dignified image. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 17:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, the image focuses on the girls when it should instead focus on the bridge. And the girl on the left isn't very good-looking. ‡ Jarlaxle 20:46, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

LOL if she ever reads this she'll be hurt. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought she looked ok, but who's to judge. Anyhow, the bridge is present, and they certainly don't take away from it. I'd ask that the image be restored until concensus is achieved. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm missing something -- where have the rights to this been released? Have those two teeny-boppers signed releases? The source quoted on the image discussion no longer exists. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a problem, the girls may not know that their picture is here and may not be at all happy about it being here. If the girls are young - (and it's difficult to tell their age) their parents may well be livid and accuse us of all sorts of things. The bridge is shown but it is obscured by the girls - not ideal. Some people are very prudish, and will find the picture offensive. Plus it looks touristy and not very professional. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

At the Peer Review of this article, I have posted some Google links to various pictures we could use of just the bridge. And I have to agree with Theresa Knott on this one: there are so many unkowns with the photo (though, for some reason, it is on the Wikimedia Commons). We do not know who took it, how old the girls are. There was a suggestion to crop the image so we just have the bridge: can we do that? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The girls heads are in the way. If we crop the picture we lose a lot of the bridge. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, we can scratch that idea out. May I repost the Google links here? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't think the picture is a good idea. Questionable taste, I think blatant nudity of questionably aged girls with questionably legally released pictures isn't really going to do much good for the bridge article. Sam is right though, we could use some sort of picture on the article.--Tznkai 22:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Before we scratch that idea out I've had a go at cropping it.

File:Skybridge.jpg

I think it's poor quality, but perhaps better than nothing. Thoughts? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm ok w anything that involves an image of a bridge for the readers to look at. Personally I think the readers would prefer to see the those happy faces (and etc...) as well, but I will respect the growing concensus ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I've added it to the article for now although I hope it will be replaced in the near futire with a better picture. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I find it extremely difficult to believe that Sam was doing anything but trying to create controversy by placing this image in this article, and as such I think it does fall under "vandalism." Exploding Boy 23:43, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yep, my goal here was to vandalise, thats why I made that edit, which was promptly reverted by eagle eyed article defender Calton. Good work, User:Calton, what would the wiki do w/o the likes of you and EB? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

That edit was after the fact. You can't possibly have imagined that an image of two topless women with a bit of bridge in the background would be greeted with cheers of appreciation. Exploding Boy 00:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I responded to an RfC, and I did what I thought was best, as I always do. Others disagreed, Theresa created a compromise, and now everyone should be happy, in theory... That is assuming our chief concern is the image, and the quality reading experience of our fearless readers... which it is, right? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Now, since that is taken care of, can we delete the proposed photos, with the censor blocks in them? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You mean the one with the big squares on the breasts? I'd vote in favor of deleting that. I can't imagine there will ever be any use for it. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that one. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't understand how some of you didn't appreciate the "twin towers" in the censored picture--It showed for all of us 14 year olds (in mind, not in age!), how strong structural support is necessary for lifting and separating, whether it is for a bridge or a couple of very well-proportioned and culturally divergent breasts!

• Peer review requests not specifying archive