![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The current main photo seems really inappropriate. It is more an artistic photograph than one which properly depicts breasts. It's shot from a side angle so as to really only show one breast; the other breast is barely seen and blurry. Overall it is not the best choice. A better photo would be directly forward, showcasing both breasts in a more clinical sense. TheGoonSquad ( talk) 04:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I feel that this image (Closeup of female breast.jpg) should be replaced in the article. The image has a visible line, which some say is a breast augmentation scar and others say is an indentation left by a bra. I personally think that it's probably an indentation, but in either case, it's a misleading mark and I think it would be better to use a picture of a typical breast without such a visible mark. I feel that the first picture in an encyclopedia article should depict the relevant object as accurately as possible and with as few misleading features as possible. Most of the time, for the majority of the human populace, such (indentation) marks are not typical features of human breasts. 86.56.40.172 ( talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Why arent their any pictures of male breasts? This isnt an article about female breasts but breats in general right?-- 76.173.255.40 ( talk) 21:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
We have one image of male breasts in the article already. It is in the disease section I think. None of "normal" male breasts. I don't really care for any of the images shown for the article. Atom ( talk) 12:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I am attempting to garner consensous for a change to the picture in the lead of the article. The one in there now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Closeup_of_female_breast.jpg is blurry and only shows one side of the breasts, whereas the one that I am proposing, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Weibliche_brust_en.jpg is a clear, full frontal view which also labels the various parts. Asarelah ( talk) 18:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no objections to a lead photo being artistic and therefore the blurryness and angle do not matter. The breast itself is not blurry and the angle is one that would be seen by a baby! The other two photos are taken for particular purposes, viz, illustrating the changes to breasts during pregnancy and thus are appropriate for such a specific purpose. The current photo is fine for the lead. There, now I have addressed your other points. Cheers! Gillyweed ( talk) 05:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
How about this one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/95C.jpg Bobisbob ( talk) 01:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
So can the one I suggested be put up? Bobisbob ( talk) 16:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The current image has too many signs which distract from the idea of straightforwardness and neutrality. The angle of the model's body, her raised blouse, the mark on the skin, the ambiguous situation regarding her state (natural, natural and pregnant, augmented, pregnant and augmented), the ambiguous room temperature (is she cold?), the natural lighting, the yellow object, the minimal depth of field, the close proximity of the lens to the subject, the tightness of the focal point in relation to its distance from the top edge of the picture frame. The new image should reflect a general appearance, almost clinical, with a collection of average and plain signs. This image (of all the images at wikimedia) appears the most suitable to me, although the model appears to be standing in her garden, and the photographer seems slightly unaware of the breasts in the context of the body. Redblueball ( talk) 15:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the image that contained the errors (for the reasons already mentioned - the awkward angle of the model's body, the shallow depth of field ("fuzziness"), and the mark on the model's breast). The new image is matter of fact, uniformly lit, shot against a neutral background, and the breast is unambiguously natural and unmarked. I've also retitled and numbered the discussions that cover the leading image. Redblueball ( talk) 18:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to say, I'm trying to have an open mind about it, but the new image doesn't look very good. It looks flat and two-dimensional. I would prefer something that looks realistic, say from the front. Atom ( talk) 18:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The visual representation of things is far from trivial, some even say that a picture is worth a thousand words... I also don't need to remind you that Wikipedia encourages change and improvements to all its content, and that includes the improvement of images. While there is a degree of visual naivete and apathy among some editors of this article for images and image making, a reason exists to employ that encouragement, make edits, and argue the cases for change. So, there appears to be a consensus for changing the lead image, or no consensus for keeping the lead image, or at least a consensus for substituting the lead image on the condition that the replacement is of better quality. Unambiguously, I've uploaded three new images, and propose that we vote on which image in the array (consisting of the new images, the current image, and the images that also appeared on the article this week) is preferred for the lead. Redblueball ( talk) 16:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent):I was actually being facetious when I mentioned the idea of photographing myself. Anyway, I will keep an eye on the commons if anyone uploads a superior picture, and I will suggest them here if anything pops up. Asarelah ( talk) 00:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
the current lead image is not appropriate for the top of the article. A better image would either be an illustrated frontal view or the first image from the gallery section which is already up for the position. Yami ( talk) 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
How did you guys on this article allow the current lead image to be in the first place. Somewhere someone must have added it and that wasn't controversial yet switching it out is? You'd think with so many editors trying to keep the article pure and encyclopedic they would have kept the lead image to retain a medical kind of tone. a Girls Gone wild, or a girlfriend showing her man the goods tone is not appropriate for the article. Yami ( talk) 19:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a discussion of the images in the gallery. WHat images in the gallery could be moved into the article, and where? Which images are useful in the gallery as additional examples supporting text in the main article, but not right for that section? Which images are useful, and offering interesting examples of the topic, and which are redundant?
Frankly, looking through the gallery images, I can see very few that are not worth keeping. I can see a number of images that we should write sections of the article for, and include one or more images. That would include Image:ImmodestyBlaizeMEW2007Topless.jpg, Image:Himba ladies.jpg, Image:Nipples after.jpg, Image:Intricate rope breast bondage.jpg, Image:449px-Manual Breast Pump 2005 SeanMcClean.jpg, Image:449px-Manual Breast Pump 2005 SeanMcClean.jpg, and Image:MaxiMounds.jpg, Image:Inflammatory breast cancer.jpg, Image:Mastectomie 02.jpg and possibly others. The histopathology sections are interesting, but there are too many for the article section, maybe choosing one good one for that section would do. Atom ( talk) 13:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There have been a recent discussion here and Skeezix1000 is tending to my point of view in rightly balancing text and images. As a result, they took away the gallery in William Lyon Mackenzie King. In fr:, some admins are currently discussing of the possibility of making commons galleries attractive in designing a new template. This could be added in text sections:
— STAR TREK Man [ Space, the final frontier... 08:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to discuss what improvements other editors feel can be made to the Gallery images. The consensus has been, in the past, to have a Gallery in this article. Recently a few editors feel that there are more images than necessary. At a glance, I agree that thre are lots of images there, so let's discuss the individual images. Suggestions to "Just remove the whole Gallery" are lazy in my opinion. CLearly there are a number of great images in the Gallery, some of which I mentioned earlier.
Are there images in the Gallery that do not seem to add anything unique?
Are there images that clearly cry out for having a section on the topic, yet not discussed, in the article?
Atom ( talk) 12:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hiding the Gallery is not censorship. It is a tool to use for people's convince. Who wants their browser window to just keep stretching and stretching until everything loads?
Just like if i was to put the hide code on the talk page it would be just to allow easier navigation so people can see the part they want to see without having to scroll for five minutes to get to where they need.
Use your common sense please, I don't mean to offend but come on It was already explained why the gallery was hidden. Removing it would be censorship in a way but hiding it is only meant as a tool to improve.
We did the same thing in the Kanto (pokemon) talk page because it got so long it took to long to find where the discussion left off. Please do not undo the hide, and it is not a link. Links take you from the current page. Also we only need maybe 4-6 medical images of the cell pictures. I say 2 blue ones and two red ones and/or purple ones. We don't need 18 of them. Yami ( talk) 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
What others? you're the only one to say its censorship, that is your opinion. It is not censorship like Asher said. You are taking the "Wikipedia does not censor" thing out of context.
Also many of those images are in their own articles. Anything that is in its own article should be removed.
I was for keeping those Himba women in but they are in their own article We can add text that talks about them but a image here and an image in their article is overkill.
We don't need three images to try and show the differences in breast shape. 1 is a medical tone image while the others are magazine article tone and i don't mean a pornographic magazine so don't take that out of context.
The Illustration of saggital section of a human breast image seems a little random so i say get rid of that or put it on the saggital article.
The Diagram showing inframammary fold also seems random and the only reason it shows the inframammary fold it seems is because the person that made it put the word inframammary Fold in bold. Also the arrow looks like it was drawn in MS paint.
The picture of the bra is ok i guess but could be moved into the main article.
Woman wearing pasties is just miscellaneous and doesn't really add to the article. It just seemed to be put there just for the fact it got breast in it, not really to add value to the article about breast. a link to Pasties could be put in the main article but having a picture is a little miscellaneous as i have said. Maybe we could put it in a new section that speaks about accessories or something but right now the image is yeah miscellaneous.
We need a modification or alteration section where we could put the nipple that are pierced. The penis has Circumcision in that section on that article so i'd say this article needs something like that as well.
The breast Shields are miscellaneous.
The breast bondage is in its own article so its overkill to have it in multiple articles like that. We already have a link to breast bondage so no harm no in 86ing it.
Breast feeding symbol needs to be moved to breast feeding section.
Diagram of dissected lactating breast is questionable. I see no lactation (maybe its worded wrong) and it does no good to number stuff if you don't have what the numbers indicate in the article. If it was to be utilized to its fullest then it should be moved to the lactation article or breast feeding article.
Wax cast of a lactating human breast is just miscellaneous. If it was to be utilized to its fullest then it should be moved to the lactation article or breast feeding article.
Breast pump image is 50-50 remove 100% or move to main.
the breast of a pregnant woman is ok i say keep it or if its deemed to fit the article itself more then move it to the article out of the gallery.
15th century torture instrument designed to rip off breasts image is questionable. There is no citation or article that says rather that is what it is. To me it looks like some kind of Fireplace accessory or something used to pick up stuff.
Diagrams of cross sections of breast implants, subglandular (left) and submuscular (right) for me would have to be placed under the cosmetic and alteration section out of the gallery.
The implants i don't know about. There should be a breast implant article. I mean if bondage of the breast has its own article then the artificial growing of them does as well.
The porn star is miscellaneous and she has her own article. Maube mention her but a image isn't really that educational.
The common inferior pedicle breast reduction procedure with final result (red indicates incision lines) should stay with its own article. That whole overkill thing. besides it looks like something doodled in MS paint and not a serious medical illustration. I believe i'll just go ahead and remove that image from this article for now. I'll check into the credibility and other things that makes this notable.
the male with enlarged breast are ok i guess. Hate to say it but when i think breast i think women but they're all technically breast. I think that guy has bigger breast then the chick flashing the camera in the lead image.
Mammogram things i have nothing wrong with, Breast prostheses used by some mastectomy patients though i'm 50-50 on.
Drawing of inflammatory breast cancer is A OK! Maybe i could edit it and make both sides like the unswollen side and we can use that as the lead image. If both sides were the same that would be the kind of tone appropriate for the lead image.
I'll leave you to decide which of the cell stains should go but i say 50% at least 18 is a little much. Yami ( talk) 23:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The following images were recently removed the article without consensus. I am trying to be constructive in discussing the topic as it is irritating to be in the middle of working on discussing the topic, and then have someone remove them without discussion. Anyway, the following images weere recently removed, and returned again. I can asusme that the editor who removed them did not feel that he liked those images. Let discuss those images then.
Image:Julie Winchester 1.JPG|Normal variation in shape
Image:Breasts01.jpg|Side view of a woman's breasts
Image:Brassiere.jpg|Woman in brassiere showing cleavage
Image:Intricate rope breast bondage.jpg| Breast bondage![]()
Image:MaxiMounds.jpg| Maxi Mounds, adult entertainer with Polypropylene breast implants. These implants are banned in the United States and in the European Union.![]()
Image:Breastreduction.PNG|The common inferior pedicle breast reduction procedure with final result (red indicates incision lines)
Image:Breast invasive scirrhous carcinoma histopathology (1).jpg|Histopathology of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast representing a scirrhous growth. Core needle biopsy. Hematoxylin and eosin stain.![]()
Image:Breast invasive scirrhous carcinoma histopathology (2) HER2 expression.JPG|Histopathology of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast representing a scirrhous growth. Core needle biopsy. HER-2/neu oncoprotein expression by Ventana immunostaining system.
Image:Intraductal papilloma histopathology (3) p63.JPG|Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Immunostaining for p63 protein.
Image:Breast fibradenoma (1).jpg|Histopathologic image of breast fibroadenoma. Core needle biopsy. Hematoxylin & eosin stain.![]()
Image:Breast fibradenoma (2).jpg|Histopathologic image of breast fibroadenoma. Core needle biopsy. Hematoxylin & eosin stain.![]()
Image:Intraductal papilloma histopathology (1).jpg|Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Hematoxylin and eosin stain.![]()
Image:Intraductal papilloma histopathology (2) smooth muscle actin.JPG|Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Immunostaining for alpha-smooth muscle actin.
Image:Intraductal papilloma histopathology (3) p63.JPG|Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Immunostaining for p63 protein.
Yami's input for above discussionMany of those images are in their own articles. Anything that is in its own article should be removed. I was for keeping those Himba women in but they are in their own article We can add text that talks about them but a image here and an image in their article is overkill. We don't need three images to try and show the differences in breast shape. 1 is a medical tone image while the others are magazine article tone and i don't mean a pornographic magazine so don't take that out of context. The Illustration of saggital section of a human breast image seems a little random so i say get rid of that or put it on the saggital article. The Diagram showing inframammary fold also seems random and the only reason it shows the inframammary fold it seems is because the person that made it put the word inframammary Fold in bold. Also the arrow looks like it was drawn in MS paint. The picture of the bra is ok i guess but could be moved into the main article. Woman wearing pasties is just miscellaneous and doesn't really add to the article. It just seemed to be put there just for the fact it got breast in it, not really to add value to the article about breast. a link to Pasties could be put in the main article but having a picture is a little miscellaneous as i have said. Maybe we could put it in a new section that speaks about accessories or something but right now the image is yeah miscellaneous. We need a modification or alteration section where we could put the nipple that are pierced. The penis has Circumcision in that section on that article so i'd say this article needs something like that as well. The breast Shields are miscellaneous. The breast bondage is in its own article so its overkill to have it in multiple articles like that. We already have a link to breast bondage so no harm no in 86ing it. Breast feeding symbol needs to be moved to breast feeding section. Diagram of dissected lactating breast is questionable. I see no lactation (maybe its worded wrong) and it does no good to number stuff if you don't have what the numbers indicate in the article. If it was to be utilized to its fullest then it should be moved to the lactation article or breast feeding article. Wax cast of a lactating human breast is just miscellaneous. If it was to be utilized to its fullest then it should be moved to the lactation article or breast feeding article. Breast pump image is 50-50 remove 100% or move to main. the breast of a pregnant woman is ok i say keep it or if its deemed to fit the article itself more then move it to the article out of the gallery. 15th century torture instrument designed to rip off breasts image is questionable. There is no citation or article that says rather that is what it is. To me it looks like some kind of Fireplace accessory or something used to pick up stuff. Diagrams of cross sections of breast implants, subglandular (left) and submuscular (right) for me would have to be placed under the cosmetic and alteration section out of the gallery. The implants i don't know about. There should be a breast implant article. I mean if bondage of the breast has its own article then the artificial growing of them does as well. The porn star is miscellaneous and she has her own article. Maube mention her but a image isn't really that educational. The common inferior pedicle breast reduction procedure with final result (red indicates incision lines) should stay with its own article. That whole overkill thing. besides it looks like something doodled in MS paint and not a serious medical illustration. I believe i'll just go ahead and remove that image from this article for now. I'll check into the credibility and other things that makes this notable. the male with enlarged breast are ok i guess. Hate to say it but when i think breast i think women but they're all technically breast. I think that guy has bigger breast then the chick flashing the camera in the lead image. Mammogram things i have nothing wrong with, Breast prostheses used by some mastectomy patients though i'm 50-50 on. Drawing of inflammatory breast cancer is A OK! Maybe i could edit it and make both sides like the unswollen side and we can use that as the lead image. If both sides were the same that would be the kind of tone appropriate for the lead image. I'll leave you to decide which of the cell stains should go but i say 50% at least 18 is a little much. Also two of the stairs are the same one but different image. Yami ( talk) 23:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC) You can add your comments in-line with the images, as I have, and that way everyone who participates will keep their comments organizae don an image by image basis. Atom ( talk) 01:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC) I finished reading your comments, and I see we are in agreement on a number of things. I will take a look again later, focusing on the ones that suggest changes in the article. Those would be easy to focus on right off the bat. I hope that we can get some other people to offer their opinions also. Atom ( talk) 01:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Half of those images are Cut and paste from or to the Breast Cancer article. There is no need to have a gallery that has images in another gallery to a page that connects to the article. We can remove much of the gallery just because its already represented in an adjacent article. A Book wouldn't have a bunch of images then tell you to turn to a certain page just to show you the same images. any and all images that are currently in use for other articles should be removed to lessen the load on this article and keep it more on topic not subtopic. Yami ( talk) 01:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Well think about it this way. Many of those images are not on topic but on subtopic. Breast Cancer is a subtopic of breast and all those images are in a gallery in the breast cancer article so they are not needed. They make the article bigger then it has to be. Yami ( talk) 02:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Are we going for consensus on this yet? its been 3 days since this discussion left off. I think we can afford to lose the breast cancer images because they're in that article's Gallery. It'd be the most encyclopedic thing because save for the table of content images, no encyclopedia would just show the same images like that. Yami ( talk) 03:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC) |
Is the "Gallery" discussion finished? If so, I'll archive. Dreadstar † 22:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Click Yami ( talk) 23:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Great image -- nice find. It has possibilities. The only downside I see is that, of course, we prefer an image of a real person over an illustration. We should add this image to the Gallery for future use. Do we have any existing images that are comparable??
How about this one?
It5s in the gallery and i tried that image and it got removed because it was part of the consensus but i don't remember any rule against using a image that wasn't in the original consensus ats a upgrade so i went and added this one. Its not really a find just a edit of another image where one side showed the breast swollen from cancer. Yami ( talk) 01:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see where consensus on the current image being used has been made. That image is unencyclopedic Yami ( talk) 02:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
archive segment that doesn't seem to move discussion forward |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
That was taken care of by a admin, and they started the edit war. you are not providing any better reason to why the current lead should stay other then its there and been there for a while. time for a upgrade. and what does the gallery have to do with the lead being replaced? stop jumping between debates. Yami ( talk) 03:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Also you guys stopped discussing the lead image so i say that means its free to replace since no one is discussing it in the lead image 3 section. ive found a better image then what is there so i'm being bold and upgrading the article. Yami ( talk) 03:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
What does me indenting or not have to do with the subject being discussed? Yami ( talk) 04:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC) if you guys won't discuss it up there i'll bring it down here "the current lead image is not appropriate for the top of the article. A better image would either be an illustrated frontal view or the first image from the gallery section which is already up for the position. Yami (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC) How did you guys on this article allow the current lead image to be in the first place. Somewhere someone must have added it and that wasn't controversial yet switching it out is? You'd think with so many editors trying to keep the article pure and encyclopedic they would have kept the lead image to retain a medical kind of tone. a Girls Gone wild, or a girlfriend showing her man the goods tone is not appropriate for the article." Yami ( talk) 04:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The lead image is inappropriate for the article i don't care how many times you guys act like it's been decided you guys decided wrong. I think the problem here is to many editors reign over the article to long. How about we just get ride of the lead image and end the entire debate? Yami ( talk) 04:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Yami, I'm glad you mentioned those policies, as I was about to mention one of them myself ( wp:civil). Please read them before you quote them though. Here is the deal Yami. Honeymane is right in that there was a recent discussion about the lede image. The discussion essentially resolved to make a consensus. We began discussing a potential change in the lede image here in the past day. That is legitimate. If we want to change thye lede, we need to cmplete the discussion. Other people, such as Honeymane, may have chimed in and opposed the change in the lede image. But -- you did not give him or others a chance. You changed the image before letting others respond. If four or five others had jumped in saying that your graphic was a great idea, or that Image95 was their preference, we might have had a consensus that any one editor might have had a hard time with. I think, perhaps, that part of the issue is that you want to make rapid changes to an article instead of having patience. It could take a number of weeks to propose a change in the lede, and then wait for dicusssion, and then make the change. If you make that change and get away with it on a small article with few interested editors, then your "being bold" works. If it is a hotly contested article, like this one, then it takes more time and patience. Consider that the circumcision article and the female genital cutting article are ten times as hot as this one when it comes to changes. In the fermale genital cutting article, one editor wantged to change the name of the article, and proposed that on 14 July move. I opposed that change, and there was substantial discussion. Ten different editors discussed and offered their view as supporting or opposing the change. On 31 july an admin closed the survey and move request, judging it as non consensus for changing the article title. The tally was four supporting the name change and six opposing the name change. This was a fairly quick process compared to some. If you are sincere about changing the lede image in this article, I will start a survey (for you), and we can keep it open for two weeks (or longer if you wish) and you can propose your preference for lede, discuss why you feel that it is the best choice, and try and convince others of that. In the end, we (myself, Honeymane, and everyone else that has been discussing here) will almost certainly support any consensus coming from that survey. Keep in mind it is not a vote. A Consensus is needed. Without a consensus, a number of editors will probably object to a change in the lede image. Let me know how you want to proceed. Atom ( talk) 04:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes i want a speedy change because the longer bad info stays the longer people want it to stay. the longer bad info stays the more it hurts the article. Also the discussion was still going on when I came in and you guys wouldn't answer a simple question as to why you guys let that image on here in the first place. A full frontal view be it real or illustrated is more encyclopedic then a side view of a woman's blurry scared breast where her shirt is lifted up with trees visible in the backdrop and a caption that says she is pregnant yet you see only the breast and not much stomach. The image should be replaced with a crisp clear picture that is fully in focus and provides a full frontal view. if 95c is not that image then the breast image i provided should be more then enough. The lead image represents the article, what kind of representing is the current lead doing? Yami ( talk) 04:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
If you mean this then you sir are lying i edited the breast cancer image to make that today. Yami ( talk) 05:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Do not edit my posts Yami ( talk) 05:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I never seen a rule about it and i never indent and i'm not going to indent. Yami ( talk) 06:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
An editor has suggested a change in the lead image. For various reasons he does not find the current image, Image:Closeup of female breast.jpg to be appropriate. Two possible images to replace the current Lead image is Image:95C.jpg or Image:Breast Image 289.jpg. I am starting this survey on his behalf to discuss opinions on whether the lead should be used, or another image. If you feel that another image is better, if you could give which lead image you prefer, and explain why.
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions. Comment period to end
August
18
2008.(Useught's comment is on my talk page by the way) Yami ( talk) 18:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
upright=1.5
code to magnify it a little?
Image:95C.jpg is small and lacks of all these other great features. —
STAR TREK Man [
Space, the final frontier... 23:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)The comment period has ended. No consensus was formed on replacing the current lede image, Image:Closeup of female breast.jpg with another image. This image should remain until a consensus for a different image can be formed. Atom ( talk) 04:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
"
Star Trek Man" wrote: "Oppose. The current image has a great resolution when you click on it (light, number of details, angle of view, artistical photographic work, the bra adds to it) and yes, it focuses on one nipple (the other blured one should be like the other!). Maybe we should add upright=1.5
code to magnify it a little?
Image:95C.jpg is small and lacks of all these other great features." Comment copied by
User:Redblueball from "Survey on lead image".
Realistic:
1. practical: seeking what is achievable or possible, based on known facts
2. simulating reality: simulating real things or imaginary things in a way that seems real
3. reasonable: not priced or valued too low or high
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Any thing that wouldn't be in a Encyclopedia is not suppose to be in wikipedia. A image of Larry the Cable Guy would not be the lead image in John Holmes article because it would be unencyclopedic and UNREALISTIC. People know Larry the cable guy does not have a porn career and did not die from aids.
Dictionaries (or the more expensive ones) have illustrations of the breast in them. It might be crude and no more then line art but both breast are viewed from the front or at least front and side. if you find one with real photos you won't see anything like the lead image.
Encyclopedia that do have pictures do not have Images of slanted blurry outdoors images of breast.
A Medical Journal entry on breast would not have a image of a woman showing her breast for beads at Mardi Gras.
Just because this is not a paper encyclopedia does not mean it shouldn't be treated and kept to the realistic approach of a paper encyclopedia. Yami ( talk) 05:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Have glance at this article http://encarta.msn.com/media_461540234_761575604_-1_1/Human_Female_Breast.html
That's a Web Encyclopedia article with a image that might not be the best but it has the right tone for what a Encyclopedia uses as far as images go. Wikipedia can use real subjects but encyclopedias do not use images like the current lead. Yami ( talk) 07:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
another site
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/MEDLINEPLUS/ency/imagepages/1075.htm
Yami ( talk) 07:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I can't follow anymore the discussion of the Breast article, Im in vacations now and going away from internet for a while. If I have to answer any further, this will be in early September. Cheers and good luck to all in improving the article. The gallery needs to be reduced. At least we agree all on this (?). :) —
STAR TREK Man [
Space, the final frontier... 12:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Well 5.5 want it changed and 4.5 want it to stay if you count the neutral vote as half of a vote to both sides. other wise its 5 in favor of change 4 in favor of keeping the current lead. Yami ( talk) 15:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
My count today is four opposed, five support and one neutral. This would be a result of no consensus for changing the image, if the survey were finished. We have until the 18th. Does anyone think that we should get an RFC to draw some more opinions, or will we be satisfied with this result? Let me know, and I will start an RFC. Atom ( talk) 14:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean consensus wasn't made? the survey showed clearly that there were more people in favor of changing the image. Yami ( talk) 14:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Also why does everyone keep focusing on 95C Yami ( talk) 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Also there is a compelling argument to change it, it all over the talk page. Yami ( talk) 14:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
What was the point of the Survey if you were just going declare no consensus. More people feels the image should change then people who wish for it to stay the same. The image should be changed. Yami ( talk) 16:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I was brought to this discussion via WikiProject Medicine. My opinion on this matter is that the lead image is clearly more artistic than encyclopaedic. An encyclopaedic image would be front-on allowing a full-view of the entire breast, or a front-on image showing both breasts. However, until there is a reasonable alternative (I haven't checked the above discussion thoroughly, it's huge) then the image should stay. If there is an alternative which is actually encyclopaedic, by all means it should be changed. This is an encyclopaedia, not deviantART. — Cyclonenim T@lk? 17:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I seriously am believing that WP:OWN applies here.
There are two images that have equal or close to it(i think 95C got more noticed) support for being switched with the current lede. If you really want the lede image to stay on the article then we can move it to the gallery. But the whole article is not a art gallery, we need to keep things to a encyclopedic tone. That includes more trimming of the gallery and a more encyclopedic representation for the breast and breasts in general.
95C.jpg and Breast Image 289.jpg are both reasonable encyclopedic replacements. They show both breast, and are not artistic like the current lede image. Encyclopedias are meant to update from time to time and its time for that update. Yami ( talk) 20:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how Forum shoppin applies here. Yami ( talk) 21:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Also you didn't convince the people who support the change to keep the current image. We've all given you the reasons yet you still ignore them and claim the image should stay and try to claim consensus. Yami ( talk) 21:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
has had the words removed. The thumbnail might show them for a bit until the change sets in. Yami ( talk) 22:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem with that one is that it is an illustration. That would be fine if we had no real images. We have an abundance of real images that do a better job. It's not like a picture of human breasts is lurid or something, it is simply another part of the human body. Atom ( talk) 22:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
That is only you POV and if a proper real image can't be found a illustration is the next best thing not some artsy angled shot of the real thing. This is where i believe that WP:OWN comes into play when you comment like this. If a illustration is more encyclopedic then any other choice then it should be used. If a real image is more encyclopedic then it should be used.
Also 4 people opposed the 5th can't be counted because it is marked after the ending period. 5 people voiced change and there is a neutral party member that is 10 people. where do you get this part about it not being consensus on Wikipedia?
Show me the article that says that 50% of the survey supporting one side doesn't equal consensus. Yami ( talk) 22:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
And the image doesn't change everyday, so that does not help your argument. I'd be surprise if the image could change once a year with how you are causing so much trouble in the consensus process. I'm not to sure, but im pretty sure that image was on the article before i went to college 2 years ago, and if so that means the image has had a good run and is time to retire. Yes changing the image daily is redundant but keeping the same image so long is just as redundant. Yami ( talk) 22:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec x2) Atom's closure is correct. If there is no consensus to change, the result is to keep the current image. Yami, if there is 50% to change, that also means there is 50% to not change. See Consensus. For example, at WP:RFA users don't get promoted to adminship unless there's a consensus. In terms of %, that translates to mean they're not promotable unles they get a % of about 75-80%, generally speaking. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The picture is dated 4 March 2006. As i said before i was sure i saw that image before i left which was 21 June 2006. If this image has been on here two years then indeed its time for a change. especially if its been debated for that long Yami ( talk) 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
We have 10% neutral so that means only 40% is for keeping it. Also i don't think Admin appointment is really a source to use in this type of situation. Yami ( talk) 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
No there are 5 support 4 oppose. The fifth Opposer can't be counted because it was voiced after the end of the comment date posted. That would be like trying to count all the people who opposed Bush's presidency two years after he was elected. This means there is a consensus if the neutral party can't be counted. Yami ( talk) 23:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Yami, you're being WP:Tendentious again. Give it a rest. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
No i'm starting the facts. Also i think that is a little vicious especially with out history. Keep good faith, and focus on the facts and/or content not the editor. Yami ( talk) 23:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
You're trying to claim consensus when there isn't one. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Says who? Says Atom who was miss representing the numbers. Also what about Atom and his whole deal with the illustration? I would say that WP:TEND would apply there. Not to me correcting people and using their logic to show that if 50-50 isn't consensus then 50-40 would be.
There are 5 support 4 oppose. The survey was open until the 18th not 19th when the last post which happened to be oppose was posted. the editor had plenty of time to voice their opinion and from August 4th i believe to the 18th there was no new opposes or supports. Yami ( talk) 23:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really saying he misrepresented the numbers on purpose, I admit its hard to count them when you have to scroll to see the rest and might lose your place. But a non existing support was added, and a oppose added to late was counted. Yami ( talk) 00:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
You are right, the last oppose came in too late. I should have noticed that. That makes 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral. The result would be no consensus. Six supported (Otolemur crassicaudatus, Yami Takashi, Artichoker, Redblueball, Useight, Asarelah) Four opposed (Atomaton, Honeymane, AliceJMarkham, Star Trek Man) and One neutral (Star Trek Man). User Vsmith posted after the deadline. Consensus would be roughly 80%, and support for removing was only ~54%. There really isn't any need to discuss it anymore, or other people will feel that it is tenditious also. My recommendation: Find another great image (not an illustration) and propose it for the new lede, ask opinions, if it seems positive, let's get a consensus and put it in. I only suggest not an illustration because I don't think that it will be acceptable by a consensus as the lede, even though it could gain some support. If you choose not to do that then I will follow up with a new lede proposal so that we can get closure. Atom ( talk) 00:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Its is 5 not 6, and its 60% over 40%. Also provided as well as other provided images that would be much better replacements.
95C and Breast image 289 are both celebrated as being better then the current image.
Many people have already voice their opinion on what the image should be of and both thos images met those standards. And who are you to decide that a illustration is not acceptable. That is where the WP:TEND would apply as well as WP:OWN and it was as i have said many times Useight who was the first to tell me that WP:OWN would possibly apply here because of the nature of your arguments.
Tell me why are you so bent on keeping that image? is that you wife or girlfriend in that image? Also why can't you just accept the images that have been expressed to be better? And why does it seem that the same three people involved in my blocking seems to be the three against me? Dreadstar much to my dislike contacted me telling me i was being WP:TEND But it would seem that you three are more or less falling under that.
I feel that you are just mad that more people were against you and you cant handle it. On the ejaculation article it is clear that i won't get consensus on the removal of the video but here it is clear that there was a building of consensus for the replacement of this article's lede. I can accept the consensus that the video survey will draw why can't you accept the clear out come of this survey? Why must you drag this out? The survey was up for weeks and its clear that people want a change. Its a image that has been expressed by multiple people in and out of the survey to be need of replacement.
95C is the best replacement if not the Breast image 298. how would you've handled it if 2 more people had voiced support for change? that would have made the 80% that you and it seems only you seem to be asking for to constitute the consensus for change. Would you've made it higher? lower what? 60% is closer then we got in the 2 weeks or so the survey was up why can't you honor the survey? Yami ( talk) 01:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
NOw that the survey is over, please see my advice on asking for the image you prefer, above. My advice generally to others is DNFT. Atom ( talk) 13:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The survey was introduced becuase there was a deadlock in the discussion. The result of the survey shows that of those who chose to comment more editors were in favour of changing the image than those who wanted no change; therefore it seems fair to me that change should now take place, unless of course there's a consensus for keeping the deadlock by further discussion. I suggest that we now begin to discuss which of the two images we would prefer as the new leading image, or to speed things up - we could just implement a new survey with the new images as the subject. Redblueball ( talk) 15:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The survey did not gain a consensus for changing the existing image. My thoughts/opinions are that if you, or someone else would like to replace the lede image:
I requested an image fitting this description a while ago at the commons, it has not been produced yet. However this image fits the description more so than than the current lead, but has not been supported by those who show a blind devotion to high pixel counts, "closest to the nipple is best" style of photography (and infantilism), and resist change for the sake of grooming the protocol of Wikipedia consensus. If it is not supported becuase it is an illustration then we have a problem with believing the cases in which painting is superior to photography (see the bodies by Lucien Freud for an example of superiority). There's a grammar to artwork that shares similarities with that of written language - we don't baulk at the editors who correct poorly written sentences, so why the fuss about the attempts to fix the image by adding an alternative? I doubt the authors who write the articles at Britannica are also given the responsibility for editing the pictures, yet here we find ourselves in an situation without precedent in which the equivalent of txt speak is supported and advocated by the "house" policies - it's like the lunatics running the asylum. So, my point here is that this image is imperfect but does not have the obvious grammatical errors to anybody who knows anything about art (or at least from what I understand from my education in the visual arts) that the current lead displays, and should be replaced as a matter of competency rather than over an issue of style. Redblueball ( talk) 12:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yami's complaint |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Yamis complaintYou editors go ahead and use 95C or a image similar. 289 is in the gallery so not much foul there. Weibliche-brust.jpg|Weiblich-brust is already being used and it has shadowing on one breast. As for this lede business go ahead and decide for yourself, I'm going to other articles. I just want to say I think it's messed up that you guys are being too controlling of this article. Like Asher196 who edit warred with me and wanted me to get consensus on removing 8/57 images from the gallery when I first came here. But you guys went ahead and start removing images like crazy and putting them in the article when it was unprotected, and i didn't see any consensus for it. Or when Asher196 put the gallery in hidden mode, Atom pulled out the Censorship card, and edit wared with the two of us. Both Asher196 and Atom's actions were ignored, and I was singled out because I am the new guy to this article and Dreadstar knows you all. At least that is how I'm feeling about this horrible situation and mediocre article. I've been been accused of censorship, animal cruelty/necrophilia, Grinding an Axe and a multitude of other things. I have been blocked 3 times because of this article, and I'm not going for a record of the most blocks in one month. Cheers and Godspeed to the next poor sap who comes here and gets trapped into this endless hell of debating, and trying to reach consensus with the same group of editors over and over. Well I've said my peace. Yami ( talk) 20:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC) |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The current main photo seems really inappropriate. It is more an artistic photograph than one which properly depicts breasts. It's shot from a side angle so as to really only show one breast; the other breast is barely seen and blurry. Overall it is not the best choice. A better photo would be directly forward, showcasing both breasts in a more clinical sense. TheGoonSquad ( talk) 04:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I feel that this image (Closeup of female breast.jpg) should be replaced in the article. The image has a visible line, which some say is a breast augmentation scar and others say is an indentation left by a bra. I personally think that it's probably an indentation, but in either case, it's a misleading mark and I think it would be better to use a picture of a typical breast without such a visible mark. I feel that the first picture in an encyclopedia article should depict the relevant object as accurately as possible and with as few misleading features as possible. Most of the time, for the majority of the human populace, such (indentation) marks are not typical features of human breasts. 86.56.40.172 ( talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Why arent their any pictures of male breasts? This isnt an article about female breasts but breats in general right?-- 76.173.255.40 ( talk) 21:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
We have one image of male breasts in the article already. It is in the disease section I think. None of "normal" male breasts. I don't really care for any of the images shown for the article. Atom ( talk) 12:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I am attempting to garner consensous for a change to the picture in the lead of the article. The one in there now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Closeup_of_female_breast.jpg is blurry and only shows one side of the breasts, whereas the one that I am proposing, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Weibliche_brust_en.jpg is a clear, full frontal view which also labels the various parts. Asarelah ( talk) 18:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no objections to a lead photo being artistic and therefore the blurryness and angle do not matter. The breast itself is not blurry and the angle is one that would be seen by a baby! The other two photos are taken for particular purposes, viz, illustrating the changes to breasts during pregnancy and thus are appropriate for such a specific purpose. The current photo is fine for the lead. There, now I have addressed your other points. Cheers! Gillyweed ( talk) 05:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
How about this one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/95C.jpg Bobisbob ( talk) 01:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
So can the one I suggested be put up? Bobisbob ( talk) 16:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The current image has too many signs which distract from the idea of straightforwardness and neutrality. The angle of the model's body, her raised blouse, the mark on the skin, the ambiguous situation regarding her state (natural, natural and pregnant, augmented, pregnant and augmented), the ambiguous room temperature (is she cold?), the natural lighting, the yellow object, the minimal depth of field, the close proximity of the lens to the subject, the tightness of the focal point in relation to its distance from the top edge of the picture frame. The new image should reflect a general appearance, almost clinical, with a collection of average and plain signs. This image (of all the images at wikimedia) appears the most suitable to me, although the model appears to be standing in her garden, and the photographer seems slightly unaware of the breasts in the context of the body. Redblueball ( talk) 15:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the image that contained the errors (for the reasons already mentioned - the awkward angle of the model's body, the shallow depth of field ("fuzziness"), and the mark on the model's breast). The new image is matter of fact, uniformly lit, shot against a neutral background, and the breast is unambiguously natural and unmarked. I've also retitled and numbered the discussions that cover the leading image. Redblueball ( talk) 18:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to say, I'm trying to have an open mind about it, but the new image doesn't look very good. It looks flat and two-dimensional. I would prefer something that looks realistic, say from the front. Atom ( talk) 18:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The visual representation of things is far from trivial, some even say that a picture is worth a thousand words... I also don't need to remind you that Wikipedia encourages change and improvements to all its content, and that includes the improvement of images. While there is a degree of visual naivete and apathy among some editors of this article for images and image making, a reason exists to employ that encouragement, make edits, and argue the cases for change. So, there appears to be a consensus for changing the lead image, or no consensus for keeping the lead image, or at least a consensus for substituting the lead image on the condition that the replacement is of better quality. Unambiguously, I've uploaded three new images, and propose that we vote on which image in the array (consisting of the new images, the current image, and the images that also appeared on the article this week) is preferred for the lead. Redblueball ( talk) 16:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent):I was actually being facetious when I mentioned the idea of photographing myself. Anyway, I will keep an eye on the commons if anyone uploads a superior picture, and I will suggest them here if anything pops up. Asarelah ( talk) 00:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
the current lead image is not appropriate for the top of the article. A better image would either be an illustrated frontal view or the first image from the gallery section which is already up for the position. Yami ( talk) 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
How did you guys on this article allow the current lead image to be in the first place. Somewhere someone must have added it and that wasn't controversial yet switching it out is? You'd think with so many editors trying to keep the article pure and encyclopedic they would have kept the lead image to retain a medical kind of tone. a Girls Gone wild, or a girlfriend showing her man the goods tone is not appropriate for the article. Yami ( talk) 19:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a discussion of the images in the gallery. WHat images in the gallery could be moved into the article, and where? Which images are useful in the gallery as additional examples supporting text in the main article, but not right for that section? Which images are useful, and offering interesting examples of the topic, and which are redundant?
Frankly, looking through the gallery images, I can see very few that are not worth keeping. I can see a number of images that we should write sections of the article for, and include one or more images. That would include Image:ImmodestyBlaizeMEW2007Topless.jpg, Image:Himba ladies.jpg, Image:Nipples after.jpg, Image:Intricate rope breast bondage.jpg, Image:449px-Manual Breast Pump 2005 SeanMcClean.jpg, Image:449px-Manual Breast Pump 2005 SeanMcClean.jpg, and Image:MaxiMounds.jpg, Image:Inflammatory breast cancer.jpg, Image:Mastectomie 02.jpg and possibly others. The histopathology sections are interesting, but there are too many for the article section, maybe choosing one good one for that section would do. Atom ( talk) 13:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There have been a recent discussion here and Skeezix1000 is tending to my point of view in rightly balancing text and images. As a result, they took away the gallery in William Lyon Mackenzie King. In fr:, some admins are currently discussing of the possibility of making commons galleries attractive in designing a new template. This could be added in text sections:
— STAR TREK Man [ Space, the final frontier... 08:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to discuss what improvements other editors feel can be made to the Gallery images. The consensus has been, in the past, to have a Gallery in this article. Recently a few editors feel that there are more images than necessary. At a glance, I agree that thre are lots of images there, so let's discuss the individual images. Suggestions to "Just remove the whole Gallery" are lazy in my opinion. CLearly there are a number of great images in the Gallery, some of which I mentioned earlier.
Are there images in the Gallery that do not seem to add anything unique?
Are there images that clearly cry out for having a section on the topic, yet not discussed, in the article?
Atom ( talk) 12:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hiding the Gallery is not censorship. It is a tool to use for people's convince. Who wants their browser window to just keep stretching and stretching until everything loads?
Just like if i was to put the hide code on the talk page it would be just to allow easier navigation so people can see the part they want to see without having to scroll for five minutes to get to where they need.
Use your common sense please, I don't mean to offend but come on It was already explained why the gallery was hidden. Removing it would be censorship in a way but hiding it is only meant as a tool to improve.
We did the same thing in the Kanto (pokemon) talk page because it got so long it took to long to find where the discussion left off. Please do not undo the hide, and it is not a link. Links take you from the current page. Also we only need maybe 4-6 medical images of the cell pictures. I say 2 blue ones and two red ones and/or purple ones. We don't need 18 of them. Yami ( talk) 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
What others? you're the only one to say its censorship, that is your opinion. It is not censorship like Asher said. You are taking the "Wikipedia does not censor" thing out of context.
Also many of those images are in their own articles. Anything that is in its own article should be removed.
I was for keeping those Himba women in but they are in their own article We can add text that talks about them but a image here and an image in their article is overkill.
We don't need three images to try and show the differences in breast shape. 1 is a medical tone image while the others are magazine article tone and i don't mean a pornographic magazine so don't take that out of context.
The Illustration of saggital section of a human breast image seems a little random so i say get rid of that or put it on the saggital article.
The Diagram showing inframammary fold also seems random and the only reason it shows the inframammary fold it seems is because the person that made it put the word inframammary Fold in bold. Also the arrow looks like it was drawn in MS paint.
The picture of the bra is ok i guess but could be moved into the main article.
Woman wearing pasties is just miscellaneous and doesn't really add to the article. It just seemed to be put there just for the fact it got breast in it, not really to add value to the article about breast. a link to Pasties could be put in the main article but having a picture is a little miscellaneous as i have said. Maybe we could put it in a new section that speaks about accessories or something but right now the image is yeah miscellaneous.
We need a modification or alteration section where we could put the nipple that are pierced. The penis has Circumcision in that section on that article so i'd say this article needs something like that as well.
The breast Shields are miscellaneous.
The breast bondage is in its own article so its overkill to have it in multiple articles like that. We already have a link to breast bondage so no harm no in 86ing it.
Breast feeding symbol needs to be moved to breast feeding section.
Diagram of dissected lactating breast is questionable. I see no lactation (maybe its worded wrong) and it does no good to number stuff if you don't have what the numbers indicate in the article. If it was to be utilized to its fullest then it should be moved to the lactation article or breast feeding article.
Wax cast of a lactating human breast is just miscellaneous. If it was to be utilized to its fullest then it should be moved to the lactation article or breast feeding article.
Breast pump image is 50-50 remove 100% or move to main.
the breast of a pregnant woman is ok i say keep it or if its deemed to fit the article itself more then move it to the article out of the gallery.
15th century torture instrument designed to rip off breasts image is questionable. There is no citation or article that says rather that is what it is. To me it looks like some kind of Fireplace accessory or something used to pick up stuff.
Diagrams of cross sections of breast implants, subglandular (left) and submuscular (right) for me would have to be placed under the cosmetic and alteration section out of the gallery.
The implants i don't know about. There should be a breast implant article. I mean if bondage of the breast has its own article then the artificial growing of them does as well.
The porn star is miscellaneous and she has her own article. Maube mention her but a image isn't really that educational.
The common inferior pedicle breast reduction procedure with final result (red indicates incision lines) should stay with its own article. That whole overkill thing. besides it looks like something doodled in MS paint and not a serious medical illustration. I believe i'll just go ahead and remove that image from this article for now. I'll check into the credibility and other things that makes this notable.
the male with enlarged breast are ok i guess. Hate to say it but when i think breast i think women but they're all technically breast. I think that guy has bigger breast then the chick flashing the camera in the lead image.
Mammogram things i have nothing wrong with, Breast prostheses used by some mastectomy patients though i'm 50-50 on.
Drawing of inflammatory breast cancer is A OK! Maybe i could edit it and make both sides like the unswollen side and we can use that as the lead image. If both sides were the same that would be the kind of tone appropriate for the lead image.
I'll leave you to decide which of the cell stains should go but i say 50% at least 18 is a little much. Yami ( talk) 23:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The following images were recently removed the article without consensus. I am trying to be constructive in discussing the topic as it is irritating to be in the middle of working on discussing the topic, and then have someone remove them without discussion. Anyway, the following images weere recently removed, and returned again. I can asusme that the editor who removed them did not feel that he liked those images. Let discuss those images then.
Image:Julie Winchester 1.JPG|Normal variation in shape
Image:Breasts01.jpg|Side view of a woman's breasts
Image:Brassiere.jpg|Woman in brassiere showing cleavage
Image:Intricate rope breast bondage.jpg| Breast bondage![]()
Image:MaxiMounds.jpg| Maxi Mounds, adult entertainer with Polypropylene breast implants. These implants are banned in the United States and in the European Union.![]()
Image:Breastreduction.PNG|The common inferior pedicle breast reduction procedure with final result (red indicates incision lines)
Image:Breast invasive scirrhous carcinoma histopathology (1).jpg|Histopathology of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast representing a scirrhous growth. Core needle biopsy. Hematoxylin and eosin stain.![]()
Image:Breast invasive scirrhous carcinoma histopathology (2) HER2 expression.JPG|Histopathology of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast representing a scirrhous growth. Core needle biopsy. HER-2/neu oncoprotein expression by Ventana immunostaining system.
Image:Intraductal papilloma histopathology (3) p63.JPG|Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Immunostaining for p63 protein.
Image:Breast fibradenoma (1).jpg|Histopathologic image of breast fibroadenoma. Core needle biopsy. Hematoxylin & eosin stain.![]()
Image:Breast fibradenoma (2).jpg|Histopathologic image of breast fibroadenoma. Core needle biopsy. Hematoxylin & eosin stain.![]()
Image:Intraductal papilloma histopathology (1).jpg|Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Hematoxylin and eosin stain.![]()
Image:Intraductal papilloma histopathology (2) smooth muscle actin.JPG|Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Immunostaining for alpha-smooth muscle actin.
Image:Intraductal papilloma histopathology (3) p63.JPG|Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Immunostaining for p63 protein.
Yami's input for above discussionMany of those images are in their own articles. Anything that is in its own article should be removed. I was for keeping those Himba women in but they are in their own article We can add text that talks about them but a image here and an image in their article is overkill. We don't need three images to try and show the differences in breast shape. 1 is a medical tone image while the others are magazine article tone and i don't mean a pornographic magazine so don't take that out of context. The Illustration of saggital section of a human breast image seems a little random so i say get rid of that or put it on the saggital article. The Diagram showing inframammary fold also seems random and the only reason it shows the inframammary fold it seems is because the person that made it put the word inframammary Fold in bold. Also the arrow looks like it was drawn in MS paint. The picture of the bra is ok i guess but could be moved into the main article. Woman wearing pasties is just miscellaneous and doesn't really add to the article. It just seemed to be put there just for the fact it got breast in it, not really to add value to the article about breast. a link to Pasties could be put in the main article but having a picture is a little miscellaneous as i have said. Maybe we could put it in a new section that speaks about accessories or something but right now the image is yeah miscellaneous. We need a modification or alteration section where we could put the nipple that are pierced. The penis has Circumcision in that section on that article so i'd say this article needs something like that as well. The breast Shields are miscellaneous. The breast bondage is in its own article so its overkill to have it in multiple articles like that. We already have a link to breast bondage so no harm no in 86ing it. Breast feeding symbol needs to be moved to breast feeding section. Diagram of dissected lactating breast is questionable. I see no lactation (maybe its worded wrong) and it does no good to number stuff if you don't have what the numbers indicate in the article. If it was to be utilized to its fullest then it should be moved to the lactation article or breast feeding article. Wax cast of a lactating human breast is just miscellaneous. If it was to be utilized to its fullest then it should be moved to the lactation article or breast feeding article. Breast pump image is 50-50 remove 100% or move to main. the breast of a pregnant woman is ok i say keep it or if its deemed to fit the article itself more then move it to the article out of the gallery. 15th century torture instrument designed to rip off breasts image is questionable. There is no citation or article that says rather that is what it is. To me it looks like some kind of Fireplace accessory or something used to pick up stuff. Diagrams of cross sections of breast implants, subglandular (left) and submuscular (right) for me would have to be placed under the cosmetic and alteration section out of the gallery. The implants i don't know about. There should be a breast implant article. I mean if bondage of the breast has its own article then the artificial growing of them does as well. The porn star is miscellaneous and she has her own article. Maube mention her but a image isn't really that educational. The common inferior pedicle breast reduction procedure with final result (red indicates incision lines) should stay with its own article. That whole overkill thing. besides it looks like something doodled in MS paint and not a serious medical illustration. I believe i'll just go ahead and remove that image from this article for now. I'll check into the credibility and other things that makes this notable. the male with enlarged breast are ok i guess. Hate to say it but when i think breast i think women but they're all technically breast. I think that guy has bigger breast then the chick flashing the camera in the lead image. Mammogram things i have nothing wrong with, Breast prostheses used by some mastectomy patients though i'm 50-50 on. Drawing of inflammatory breast cancer is A OK! Maybe i could edit it and make both sides like the unswollen side and we can use that as the lead image. If both sides were the same that would be the kind of tone appropriate for the lead image. I'll leave you to decide which of the cell stains should go but i say 50% at least 18 is a little much. Also two of the stairs are the same one but different image. Yami ( talk) 23:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC) You can add your comments in-line with the images, as I have, and that way everyone who participates will keep their comments organizae don an image by image basis. Atom ( talk) 01:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC) I finished reading your comments, and I see we are in agreement on a number of things. I will take a look again later, focusing on the ones that suggest changes in the article. Those would be easy to focus on right off the bat. I hope that we can get some other people to offer their opinions also. Atom ( talk) 01:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Half of those images are Cut and paste from or to the Breast Cancer article. There is no need to have a gallery that has images in another gallery to a page that connects to the article. We can remove much of the gallery just because its already represented in an adjacent article. A Book wouldn't have a bunch of images then tell you to turn to a certain page just to show you the same images. any and all images that are currently in use for other articles should be removed to lessen the load on this article and keep it more on topic not subtopic. Yami ( talk) 01:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Well think about it this way. Many of those images are not on topic but on subtopic. Breast Cancer is a subtopic of breast and all those images are in a gallery in the breast cancer article so they are not needed. They make the article bigger then it has to be. Yami ( talk) 02:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Are we going for consensus on this yet? its been 3 days since this discussion left off. I think we can afford to lose the breast cancer images because they're in that article's Gallery. It'd be the most encyclopedic thing because save for the table of content images, no encyclopedia would just show the same images like that. Yami ( talk) 03:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC) |
Is the "Gallery" discussion finished? If so, I'll archive. Dreadstar † 22:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Click Yami ( talk) 23:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Great image -- nice find. It has possibilities. The only downside I see is that, of course, we prefer an image of a real person over an illustration. We should add this image to the Gallery for future use. Do we have any existing images that are comparable??
How about this one?
It5s in the gallery and i tried that image and it got removed because it was part of the consensus but i don't remember any rule against using a image that wasn't in the original consensus ats a upgrade so i went and added this one. Its not really a find just a edit of another image where one side showed the breast swollen from cancer. Yami ( talk) 01:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see where consensus on the current image being used has been made. That image is unencyclopedic Yami ( talk) 02:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
archive segment that doesn't seem to move discussion forward |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
That was taken care of by a admin, and they started the edit war. you are not providing any better reason to why the current lead should stay other then its there and been there for a while. time for a upgrade. and what does the gallery have to do with the lead being replaced? stop jumping between debates. Yami ( talk) 03:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Also you guys stopped discussing the lead image so i say that means its free to replace since no one is discussing it in the lead image 3 section. ive found a better image then what is there so i'm being bold and upgrading the article. Yami ( talk) 03:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
What does me indenting or not have to do with the subject being discussed? Yami ( talk) 04:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC) if you guys won't discuss it up there i'll bring it down here "the current lead image is not appropriate for the top of the article. A better image would either be an illustrated frontal view or the first image from the gallery section which is already up for the position. Yami (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC) How did you guys on this article allow the current lead image to be in the first place. Somewhere someone must have added it and that wasn't controversial yet switching it out is? You'd think with so many editors trying to keep the article pure and encyclopedic they would have kept the lead image to retain a medical kind of tone. a Girls Gone wild, or a girlfriend showing her man the goods tone is not appropriate for the article." Yami ( talk) 04:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The lead image is inappropriate for the article i don't care how many times you guys act like it's been decided you guys decided wrong. I think the problem here is to many editors reign over the article to long. How about we just get ride of the lead image and end the entire debate? Yami ( talk) 04:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Yami, I'm glad you mentioned those policies, as I was about to mention one of them myself ( wp:civil). Please read them before you quote them though. Here is the deal Yami. Honeymane is right in that there was a recent discussion about the lede image. The discussion essentially resolved to make a consensus. We began discussing a potential change in the lede image here in the past day. That is legitimate. If we want to change thye lede, we need to cmplete the discussion. Other people, such as Honeymane, may have chimed in and opposed the change in the lede image. But -- you did not give him or others a chance. You changed the image before letting others respond. If four or five others had jumped in saying that your graphic was a great idea, or that Image95 was their preference, we might have had a consensus that any one editor might have had a hard time with. I think, perhaps, that part of the issue is that you want to make rapid changes to an article instead of having patience. It could take a number of weeks to propose a change in the lede, and then wait for dicusssion, and then make the change. If you make that change and get away with it on a small article with few interested editors, then your "being bold" works. If it is a hotly contested article, like this one, then it takes more time and patience. Consider that the circumcision article and the female genital cutting article are ten times as hot as this one when it comes to changes. In the fermale genital cutting article, one editor wantged to change the name of the article, and proposed that on 14 July move. I opposed that change, and there was substantial discussion. Ten different editors discussed and offered their view as supporting or opposing the change. On 31 july an admin closed the survey and move request, judging it as non consensus for changing the article title. The tally was four supporting the name change and six opposing the name change. This was a fairly quick process compared to some. If you are sincere about changing the lede image in this article, I will start a survey (for you), and we can keep it open for two weeks (or longer if you wish) and you can propose your preference for lede, discuss why you feel that it is the best choice, and try and convince others of that. In the end, we (myself, Honeymane, and everyone else that has been discussing here) will almost certainly support any consensus coming from that survey. Keep in mind it is not a vote. A Consensus is needed. Without a consensus, a number of editors will probably object to a change in the lede image. Let me know how you want to proceed. Atom ( talk) 04:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes i want a speedy change because the longer bad info stays the longer people want it to stay. the longer bad info stays the more it hurts the article. Also the discussion was still going on when I came in and you guys wouldn't answer a simple question as to why you guys let that image on here in the first place. A full frontal view be it real or illustrated is more encyclopedic then a side view of a woman's blurry scared breast where her shirt is lifted up with trees visible in the backdrop and a caption that says she is pregnant yet you see only the breast and not much stomach. The image should be replaced with a crisp clear picture that is fully in focus and provides a full frontal view. if 95c is not that image then the breast image i provided should be more then enough. The lead image represents the article, what kind of representing is the current lead doing? Yami ( talk) 04:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
If you mean this then you sir are lying i edited the breast cancer image to make that today. Yami ( talk) 05:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Do not edit my posts Yami ( talk) 05:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I never seen a rule about it and i never indent and i'm not going to indent. Yami ( talk) 06:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
An editor has suggested a change in the lead image. For various reasons he does not find the current image, Image:Closeup of female breast.jpg to be appropriate. Two possible images to replace the current Lead image is Image:95C.jpg or Image:Breast Image 289.jpg. I am starting this survey on his behalf to discuss opinions on whether the lead should be used, or another image. If you feel that another image is better, if you could give which lead image you prefer, and explain why.
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions. Comment period to end
August
18
2008.(Useught's comment is on my talk page by the way) Yami ( talk) 18:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
upright=1.5
code to magnify it a little?
Image:95C.jpg is small and lacks of all these other great features. —
STAR TREK Man [
Space, the final frontier... 23:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)The comment period has ended. No consensus was formed on replacing the current lede image, Image:Closeup of female breast.jpg with another image. This image should remain until a consensus for a different image can be formed. Atom ( talk) 04:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
"
Star Trek Man" wrote: "Oppose. The current image has a great resolution when you click on it (light, number of details, angle of view, artistical photographic work, the bra adds to it) and yes, it focuses on one nipple (the other blured one should be like the other!). Maybe we should add upright=1.5
code to magnify it a little?
Image:95C.jpg is small and lacks of all these other great features." Comment copied by
User:Redblueball from "Survey on lead image".
Realistic:
1. practical: seeking what is achievable or possible, based on known facts
2. simulating reality: simulating real things or imaginary things in a way that seems real
3. reasonable: not priced or valued too low or high
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Any thing that wouldn't be in a Encyclopedia is not suppose to be in wikipedia. A image of Larry the Cable Guy would not be the lead image in John Holmes article because it would be unencyclopedic and UNREALISTIC. People know Larry the cable guy does not have a porn career and did not die from aids.
Dictionaries (or the more expensive ones) have illustrations of the breast in them. It might be crude and no more then line art but both breast are viewed from the front or at least front and side. if you find one with real photos you won't see anything like the lead image.
Encyclopedia that do have pictures do not have Images of slanted blurry outdoors images of breast.
A Medical Journal entry on breast would not have a image of a woman showing her breast for beads at Mardi Gras.
Just because this is not a paper encyclopedia does not mean it shouldn't be treated and kept to the realistic approach of a paper encyclopedia. Yami ( talk) 05:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Have glance at this article http://encarta.msn.com/media_461540234_761575604_-1_1/Human_Female_Breast.html
That's a Web Encyclopedia article with a image that might not be the best but it has the right tone for what a Encyclopedia uses as far as images go. Wikipedia can use real subjects but encyclopedias do not use images like the current lead. Yami ( talk) 07:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
another site
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/MEDLINEPLUS/ency/imagepages/1075.htm
Yami ( talk) 07:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I can't follow anymore the discussion of the Breast article, Im in vacations now and going away from internet for a while. If I have to answer any further, this will be in early September. Cheers and good luck to all in improving the article. The gallery needs to be reduced. At least we agree all on this (?). :) —
STAR TREK Man [
Space, the final frontier... 12:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Well 5.5 want it changed and 4.5 want it to stay if you count the neutral vote as half of a vote to both sides. other wise its 5 in favor of change 4 in favor of keeping the current lead. Yami ( talk) 15:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
My count today is four opposed, five support and one neutral. This would be a result of no consensus for changing the image, if the survey were finished. We have until the 18th. Does anyone think that we should get an RFC to draw some more opinions, or will we be satisfied with this result? Let me know, and I will start an RFC. Atom ( talk) 14:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean consensus wasn't made? the survey showed clearly that there were more people in favor of changing the image. Yami ( talk) 14:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Also why does everyone keep focusing on 95C Yami ( talk) 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Also there is a compelling argument to change it, it all over the talk page. Yami ( talk) 14:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
What was the point of the Survey if you were just going declare no consensus. More people feels the image should change then people who wish for it to stay the same. The image should be changed. Yami ( talk) 16:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I was brought to this discussion via WikiProject Medicine. My opinion on this matter is that the lead image is clearly more artistic than encyclopaedic. An encyclopaedic image would be front-on allowing a full-view of the entire breast, or a front-on image showing both breasts. However, until there is a reasonable alternative (I haven't checked the above discussion thoroughly, it's huge) then the image should stay. If there is an alternative which is actually encyclopaedic, by all means it should be changed. This is an encyclopaedia, not deviantART. — Cyclonenim T@lk? 17:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I seriously am believing that WP:OWN applies here.
There are two images that have equal or close to it(i think 95C got more noticed) support for being switched with the current lede. If you really want the lede image to stay on the article then we can move it to the gallery. But the whole article is not a art gallery, we need to keep things to a encyclopedic tone. That includes more trimming of the gallery and a more encyclopedic representation for the breast and breasts in general.
95C.jpg and Breast Image 289.jpg are both reasonable encyclopedic replacements. They show both breast, and are not artistic like the current lede image. Encyclopedias are meant to update from time to time and its time for that update. Yami ( talk) 20:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how Forum shoppin applies here. Yami ( talk) 21:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Also you didn't convince the people who support the change to keep the current image. We've all given you the reasons yet you still ignore them and claim the image should stay and try to claim consensus. Yami ( talk) 21:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
has had the words removed. The thumbnail might show them for a bit until the change sets in. Yami ( talk) 22:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem with that one is that it is an illustration. That would be fine if we had no real images. We have an abundance of real images that do a better job. It's not like a picture of human breasts is lurid or something, it is simply another part of the human body. Atom ( talk) 22:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
That is only you POV and if a proper real image can't be found a illustration is the next best thing not some artsy angled shot of the real thing. This is where i believe that WP:OWN comes into play when you comment like this. If a illustration is more encyclopedic then any other choice then it should be used. If a real image is more encyclopedic then it should be used.
Also 4 people opposed the 5th can't be counted because it is marked after the ending period. 5 people voiced change and there is a neutral party member that is 10 people. where do you get this part about it not being consensus on Wikipedia?
Show me the article that says that 50% of the survey supporting one side doesn't equal consensus. Yami ( talk) 22:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
And the image doesn't change everyday, so that does not help your argument. I'd be surprise if the image could change once a year with how you are causing so much trouble in the consensus process. I'm not to sure, but im pretty sure that image was on the article before i went to college 2 years ago, and if so that means the image has had a good run and is time to retire. Yes changing the image daily is redundant but keeping the same image so long is just as redundant. Yami ( talk) 22:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec x2) Atom's closure is correct. If there is no consensus to change, the result is to keep the current image. Yami, if there is 50% to change, that also means there is 50% to not change. See Consensus. For example, at WP:RFA users don't get promoted to adminship unless there's a consensus. In terms of %, that translates to mean they're not promotable unles they get a % of about 75-80%, generally speaking. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The picture is dated 4 March 2006. As i said before i was sure i saw that image before i left which was 21 June 2006. If this image has been on here two years then indeed its time for a change. especially if its been debated for that long Yami ( talk) 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
We have 10% neutral so that means only 40% is for keeping it. Also i don't think Admin appointment is really a source to use in this type of situation. Yami ( talk) 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
No there are 5 support 4 oppose. The fifth Opposer can't be counted because it was voiced after the end of the comment date posted. That would be like trying to count all the people who opposed Bush's presidency two years after he was elected. This means there is a consensus if the neutral party can't be counted. Yami ( talk) 23:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Yami, you're being WP:Tendentious again. Give it a rest. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
No i'm starting the facts. Also i think that is a little vicious especially with out history. Keep good faith, and focus on the facts and/or content not the editor. Yami ( talk) 23:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
You're trying to claim consensus when there isn't one. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Says who? Says Atom who was miss representing the numbers. Also what about Atom and his whole deal with the illustration? I would say that WP:TEND would apply there. Not to me correcting people and using their logic to show that if 50-50 isn't consensus then 50-40 would be.
There are 5 support 4 oppose. The survey was open until the 18th not 19th when the last post which happened to be oppose was posted. the editor had plenty of time to voice their opinion and from August 4th i believe to the 18th there was no new opposes or supports. Yami ( talk) 23:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really saying he misrepresented the numbers on purpose, I admit its hard to count them when you have to scroll to see the rest and might lose your place. But a non existing support was added, and a oppose added to late was counted. Yami ( talk) 00:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
You are right, the last oppose came in too late. I should have noticed that. That makes 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral. The result would be no consensus. Six supported (Otolemur crassicaudatus, Yami Takashi, Artichoker, Redblueball, Useight, Asarelah) Four opposed (Atomaton, Honeymane, AliceJMarkham, Star Trek Man) and One neutral (Star Trek Man). User Vsmith posted after the deadline. Consensus would be roughly 80%, and support for removing was only ~54%. There really isn't any need to discuss it anymore, or other people will feel that it is tenditious also. My recommendation: Find another great image (not an illustration) and propose it for the new lede, ask opinions, if it seems positive, let's get a consensus and put it in. I only suggest not an illustration because I don't think that it will be acceptable by a consensus as the lede, even though it could gain some support. If you choose not to do that then I will follow up with a new lede proposal so that we can get closure. Atom ( talk) 00:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Its is 5 not 6, and its 60% over 40%. Also provided as well as other provided images that would be much better replacements.
95C and Breast image 289 are both celebrated as being better then the current image.
Many people have already voice their opinion on what the image should be of and both thos images met those standards. And who are you to decide that a illustration is not acceptable. That is where the WP:TEND would apply as well as WP:OWN and it was as i have said many times Useight who was the first to tell me that WP:OWN would possibly apply here because of the nature of your arguments.
Tell me why are you so bent on keeping that image? is that you wife or girlfriend in that image? Also why can't you just accept the images that have been expressed to be better? And why does it seem that the same three people involved in my blocking seems to be the three against me? Dreadstar much to my dislike contacted me telling me i was being WP:TEND But it would seem that you three are more or less falling under that.
I feel that you are just mad that more people were against you and you cant handle it. On the ejaculation article it is clear that i won't get consensus on the removal of the video but here it is clear that there was a building of consensus for the replacement of this article's lede. I can accept the consensus that the video survey will draw why can't you accept the clear out come of this survey? Why must you drag this out? The survey was up for weeks and its clear that people want a change. Its a image that has been expressed by multiple people in and out of the survey to be need of replacement.
95C is the best replacement if not the Breast image 298. how would you've handled it if 2 more people had voiced support for change? that would have made the 80% that you and it seems only you seem to be asking for to constitute the consensus for change. Would you've made it higher? lower what? 60% is closer then we got in the 2 weeks or so the survey was up why can't you honor the survey? Yami ( talk) 01:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
NOw that the survey is over, please see my advice on asking for the image you prefer, above. My advice generally to others is DNFT. Atom ( talk) 13:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The survey was introduced becuase there was a deadlock in the discussion. The result of the survey shows that of those who chose to comment more editors were in favour of changing the image than those who wanted no change; therefore it seems fair to me that change should now take place, unless of course there's a consensus for keeping the deadlock by further discussion. I suggest that we now begin to discuss which of the two images we would prefer as the new leading image, or to speed things up - we could just implement a new survey with the new images as the subject. Redblueball ( talk) 15:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The survey did not gain a consensus for changing the existing image. My thoughts/opinions are that if you, or someone else would like to replace the lede image:
I requested an image fitting this description a while ago at the commons, it has not been produced yet. However this image fits the description more so than than the current lead, but has not been supported by those who show a blind devotion to high pixel counts, "closest to the nipple is best" style of photography (and infantilism), and resist change for the sake of grooming the protocol of Wikipedia consensus. If it is not supported becuase it is an illustration then we have a problem with believing the cases in which painting is superior to photography (see the bodies by Lucien Freud for an example of superiority). There's a grammar to artwork that shares similarities with that of written language - we don't baulk at the editors who correct poorly written sentences, so why the fuss about the attempts to fix the image by adding an alternative? I doubt the authors who write the articles at Britannica are also given the responsibility for editing the pictures, yet here we find ourselves in an situation without precedent in which the equivalent of txt speak is supported and advocated by the "house" policies - it's like the lunatics running the asylum. So, my point here is that this image is imperfect but does not have the obvious grammatical errors to anybody who knows anything about art (or at least from what I understand from my education in the visual arts) that the current lead displays, and should be replaced as a matter of competency rather than over an issue of style. Redblueball ( talk) 12:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yami's complaint |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Yamis complaintYou editors go ahead and use 95C or a image similar. 289 is in the gallery so not much foul there. Weibliche-brust.jpg|Weiblich-brust is already being used and it has shadowing on one breast. As for this lede business go ahead and decide for yourself, I'm going to other articles. I just want to say I think it's messed up that you guys are being too controlling of this article. Like Asher196 who edit warred with me and wanted me to get consensus on removing 8/57 images from the gallery when I first came here. But you guys went ahead and start removing images like crazy and putting them in the article when it was unprotected, and i didn't see any consensus for it. Or when Asher196 put the gallery in hidden mode, Atom pulled out the Censorship card, and edit wared with the two of us. Both Asher196 and Atom's actions were ignored, and I was singled out because I am the new guy to this article and Dreadstar knows you all. At least that is how I'm feeling about this horrible situation and mediocre article. I've been been accused of censorship, animal cruelty/necrophilia, Grinding an Axe and a multitude of other things. I have been blocked 3 times because of this article, and I'm not going for a record of the most blocks in one month. Cheers and Godspeed to the next poor sap who comes here and gets trapped into this endless hell of debating, and trying to reach consensus with the same group of editors over and over. Well I've said my peace. Yami ( talk) 20:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC) |