Oppose, won't be as controversial as one picture we had recently on FPC, but the same issue about 'what is considered a featured picture' can be looked at here. It does indeed well illsutrate the
Kathoey article, but the picture isn't really that great. Simple pictures of individuals tend to have a hard time on FPC.
Phoenix2 18:20, September 10, 2005 (UTC), voted
22:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC).reply
Actually, I think it is as controversial as that other recent pic referred to, and should be treated similarly, as a link only (rather than an embedded pic), and with a similar comment that some may find the picture offensive -
MPF21:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Its not as bad as the other (the people in this pic are clothed), but this picture and the other one both air from the same nerighborhood, so I imagine that this picture will be treated similarly.
TomStar8123:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)reply
The only thing I find shocking here is the fact that there are actually people who think this image is so offensive it needs to be linked to and not seen immediately. That is so laughably ludicrous and immature I think it sould be featured for that reason alone. It is a fascinating image which allows the viewer insight into a culture which they may never see otherwise. That is practically the definition of a good Wiki article. It is technically acceptable with regard to framing, color, focus and exposure. I see no reason not to support this image. --
Deglr632803:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)reply
I have to agree with Delgr6328 about not showing this image. Nowhere near as controversial as the previous one. Really it's nothing worse than you would see if you went to the beach.
Raven4x4x 08:43, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Hiding this image is absurd, and it's certainly nice to have a photograph of
Kathoey. However, featured pictures, in my opinion, shouldn't simply be of an interesting subject -- they should be a technically brilliant illustration of said subject. It's good that the red eyes have been filtered, but the feet of two models are cut off at the bottom, the tilted camera makes it look as if they are sliding down, the left model has its fingers crossed for some reason, the right model looks like she wants to arrest the center one, and the left one has a distracting blue/white number sign on her. It looks more like a personal snapshot than something that strikingly illustrates the topic at hand. Seeing the photo did not make me interested in the article, which is the killer criterion for a featured picture, I think.--
Eloquence* 11:41, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, it seems now as if there are more people actively trying to stir up controversy in Wikipedia. If half the people that comment think that an image is inapporopriate, than it hardly deserves to even be an FPC candidate.
Phoenix2 17:53, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Firstly, I note the discussion above regarding the potential inability to show the picture. Also, it's an ok picture, but by no means brilliant.
Enochlau07:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I don't understand why anyone would consider men in bikinis to be offensive, but I don't see anything particularly interesting about the picture either.
Mark103:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Eloguence, CapeCod and Mark. The image is not offensive at all, but it's also not particularly visually interesting.--
Pharos16:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I don't find it controversial at all. However, I think a picture of them unawares and not facing us as if they're friends of ours on holiday with us would have been infinitely preferable. --
bodnotbod18:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment I think the other pic in the article is much better from every technical and aesthetic point of view (except resolution) but it's still not FP quality. For what it's worth though, I really do agree with AxelBoldt and a few others above that a good (and tasteful) photo of Kathoey would make a really worthwhile addition to FP. Can anyone in Thailand start snapping please? :-) ~
Veledan •
Talk+ new01:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose, won't be as controversial as one picture we had recently on FPC, but the same issue about 'what is considered a featured picture' can be looked at here. It does indeed well illsutrate the
Kathoey article, but the picture isn't really that great. Simple pictures of individuals tend to have a hard time on FPC.
Phoenix2 18:20, September 10, 2005 (UTC), voted
22:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC).reply
Actually, I think it is as controversial as that other recent pic referred to, and should be treated similarly, as a link only (rather than an embedded pic), and with a similar comment that some may find the picture offensive -
MPF21:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Its not as bad as the other (the people in this pic are clothed), but this picture and the other one both air from the same nerighborhood, so I imagine that this picture will be treated similarly.
TomStar8123:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)reply
The only thing I find shocking here is the fact that there are actually people who think this image is so offensive it needs to be linked to and not seen immediately. That is so laughably ludicrous and immature I think it sould be featured for that reason alone. It is a fascinating image which allows the viewer insight into a culture which they may never see otherwise. That is practically the definition of a good Wiki article. It is technically acceptable with regard to framing, color, focus and exposure. I see no reason not to support this image. --
Deglr632803:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)reply
I have to agree with Delgr6328 about not showing this image. Nowhere near as controversial as the previous one. Really it's nothing worse than you would see if you went to the beach.
Raven4x4x 08:43, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Hiding this image is absurd, and it's certainly nice to have a photograph of
Kathoey. However, featured pictures, in my opinion, shouldn't simply be of an interesting subject -- they should be a technically brilliant illustration of said subject. It's good that the red eyes have been filtered, but the feet of two models are cut off at the bottom, the tilted camera makes it look as if they are sliding down, the left model has its fingers crossed for some reason, the right model looks like she wants to arrest the center one, and the left one has a distracting blue/white number sign on her. It looks more like a personal snapshot than something that strikingly illustrates the topic at hand. Seeing the photo did not make me interested in the article, which is the killer criterion for a featured picture, I think.--
Eloquence* 11:41, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, it seems now as if there are more people actively trying to stir up controversy in Wikipedia. If half the people that comment think that an image is inapporopriate, than it hardly deserves to even be an FPC candidate.
Phoenix2 17:53, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Firstly, I note the discussion above regarding the potential inability to show the picture. Also, it's an ok picture, but by no means brilliant.
Enochlau07:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I don't understand why anyone would consider men in bikinis to be offensive, but I don't see anything particularly interesting about the picture either.
Mark103:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Eloguence, CapeCod and Mark. The image is not offensive at all, but it's also not particularly visually interesting.--
Pharos16:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I don't find it controversial at all. However, I think a picture of them unawares and not facing us as if they're friends of ours on holiday with us would have been infinitely preferable. --
bodnotbod18:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment I think the other pic in the article is much better from every technical and aesthetic point of view (except resolution) but it's still not FP quality. For what it's worth though, I really do agree with AxelBoldt and a few others above that a good (and tasteful) photo of Kathoey would make a really worthwhile addition to FP. Can anyone in Thailand start snapping please? :-) ~
Veledan •
Talk+ new01:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)reply