Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day

Reporting caption errors

Please do not post error reports for today's POTD caption here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you.

Userbox

Code	Result
{{User:CFeyecare/templates/POTD}}	This user enjoys the Picture of the Day.	Usage

Another image that I think should not be POTD

I have no problem with Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Roadkill being a featured picture, but surely it is too graphic to be a Picture of the Day.

I noticed it in the queue only a few days in the future. Can someone think about unqueuing it while there is still time?

If there is already a discussion of this, please show me where. (Reply here.) I can't find any reference to a page where Picture of the Day candidates are discussed, only featured picture candidates.

--50.100.193.30 (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why hide a scene that anyone could randomly see while driving along the highway? (I will never understand censorship.) HiLo48 (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Per Hilo. It's a fact of life. The Circle of Life is not all baby lions and bowing antelopes. There's decaying deer and scavengers as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

There's censorship and then there's taste. "It's a fact of life" does not mean that it belongs on the front page of your encyclopedia. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• And that image came and went without a single complaint at T:MP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that I was an outlier on this. But this still leads to me to ask again -- wait, I'll make it a separate question, below. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Where is the right place to discuss the use of featured pictures as Pictures of the Day?

Where is the right place to discuss the use of featured pictures as Pictures of the Day? Where is consensus established that a picture is or is not "too graphic", or whether it should best appear on a particular date, or that sort of thing?

Currently I see an issue of another kind: the candidate queued for May 5 does not exist. In June a whole set of 47 different images of map projections was promoted all at once to be featured pictures. Someone chose one of the projections to be POTD for May 5, but there are actually two different images corresponding to that projection and neither one is currently named in the POTD template. So someone has to pick one. Where is the right place to raise this issue?

I think this article (WP:Picture of the Day) needs to answer this question, and I don't think it currently does. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• If you do not know what is happening, ask. Regarding the candidate queued for May 5, I am not a specialist in map projections. As such, I have asked the creator (Strebe) whether it is better to present the front and rear projections side-by-side, or overlayed, as shown below:

• 
  Overlayed
• 
  Side by side

There's still another two weeks to go before that image runs, plenty of time to choose which one is best. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. But you say "ask" as if you meant I should ask somewhere else. My first question was where to ask and why this page doesn't seem to say. Thanks. --12:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• No, no need to ask somewhere else. Just ask here, before assuming there's a problem. (People interested in POTD generally have this on their watchlist). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

As for your first question: the vast majority are chosen by the "picture of the day coordinator" (not an actual position, but since I don't have any better terms for this let's go with that). It is essentially a person who has volunteered to regularly schedule POTD. If I'm not mistaken, this started with Solipsist, then it was Howcheng, and since January 2013 I've been doing it, to give Howcheng more time with his other activities. This means that the vast majority of POTDs are selected by these individuals, although others are generally allowed to choose POTDs so long as they follow the guidelines (though I may move a suggested POTD if it's too close to something similar or if there is a clear date relevance). Currently, if we were to have POTD scheduled by whomever felt like doing it, it's quite possible that we'd miss several days. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah! So your answer to my earlier complaint was an "official" one, so to speak. Since you didn't identify your position, I did not realize that. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Not quite "official" in the strictest sense, but ... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

As for how "too graphic" is defined... no written guidelines yet. I've been going with sexualized nudity = no; artistic nudity = okay; common gore/violence (i.e. gore/violence one can find in an average day) = probably; extraordinary gore (i.e. gore/violence which is considerably rarer, say dead bodies after the holocaust) = no, except after a discussion. Subjective, yes, but these images come up so rarely there is probably no need to write an actual policy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ask for a policy; I figured it would be like that. I asked where to raise such issues. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Here or my talk page. I'll leave a note to that effect on the main POTD page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, that covers it. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

April 30

The word "Uranium" in Template:POTD/2014-04-30 should be uncapitalized, but I don't know how practical it is to change a word embedded in a picture. I can't just click "edit".

And since I'm here, you have conflicting instructions about posting errors for pictures that aren't today's or tomorrow's featured picture yet. Here or WP:ERRORS? Art LaPella (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• For that I'd go to the image lab, specifically Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. SVGs have always been past me.

As for the template at the top of this page, thanks for the heads up. I'll fix that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Looks to be fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of Media Viewer?

Media Viewer lets you browse larger images on Wikipedia.

Hi folks: because of your interest in quality images, we'd love to hear what you think about Media Viewer, a new tool that aims to improve the viewing experience on Wikipedia and its sister sites.

This multimedia browser displays images in larger size and with less clutter, providing a more immersive user experience, as described here. It was developed in collaboration with many community members -- including over 12,000 beta users here on English Wikipedia, who have been testing it since November 2013. The current plan is to release this tool gradually in coming weeks: it is already enabled by default on over a dozen sites (including the Dutch, French and Polish Wikipedia), and will be deployed more widely throughout May, as described in this release plan.

Can you share your feedback about this tool, to help address any critical issues before its May 15 release on the English Wikipedia? To try it out, please log in and click on the small 'Beta' link next to 'Preferences' in your personal menu. Then check the box next to 'Media Viewer' in the Beta Features section of your user preferences — and click 'Save'. You can now click on any thumbnail image on this site to see it in larger size in the Media Viewer. For more info, check out these testing tips or this Help page.

Once you've tried the tool, please share your feedback in this discussion, to help improve this feature. You're also welcome to take this quick survey -- or join this in-depth discussion on MediaWiki.org, as you prefer. Thanks for sharing your insights! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion regarding possible picture of the day: Michele Merkin

First blurb

Picture of the day

A glamour shot showing Michele Merkin, an American model and television host. Merkin has appeared in such magazines as ELLE, Marie Claire, Harper's Bazaar and Vogue. She has hosted The Next Best Thing, E! News Daily, NBC's For Love or Money and VH1's Red Eye.Photo courtesy of: Michele Merkin

Second blurb

Picture of the day

A glamour shot showing Michele Merkin, an American model and television host. The genre of glamour photography is most used commercially, with models – usually professional – holding a still position to allow for a composed image. Photographers may use a combination of cosmetics, lighting and airbrushing techniques to produce an image of the subject considered appealing for the target demographic.Photo courtesy of: Michele Merkin

• Greetings, all. As I've promised elsewhere, before I run a potentially controversial image in POTD, I would like to open up discussion so that the community can decide whether or not the image should be run. What you have before you is an image of Michele Merkin, an American model and television presenter, who's image may run on June 25, 2014 (her birthday). The image has been a featured picture since 2006, and has not run on the main page since then owing to concerns over possible negative feedback from her minimally dressed state. However, as Wikipedia is not censored, and sometimes near-nudity has its value, I feel that this should be a community decision. As the image is no longer used in Merkin's article (just recently removed, in fact) the blurb is for glamour photograph, where this still has what we call "encyclopedic value": it remains educationally illustrative of a subject or concept.

In the sections below, please write if you support or oppose this image running (with this blurb or another), along with your reasoning. This discussion will be closed in two weeks, and then the image removed or scheduled as necessary. Posts have been made at WT:MP, WT:FPC, and the talk pages of glamour photography and Mirkin. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

• Weak support - I'm not quite sure what commends this image rather than any other, but the image proposed would not be considered indecent by most standards. You could stick that on a public billboard here in the UK. The idea that a certain amount of bare skin is automatically not for the main page is a curious one at best. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Alex, the only thing that sets this one apart from the other images in Category:Michele Merkin is that this one was selected through the featured pictures process as "one of Wikipedia's best images". As POTD can only be selected from featured images, that means the other images cannot be selected. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, quite - hence my support. I regard the FP process as sufficient - there should be no obstacle to this image going on the home page. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, no issues with that. Just replying to "I'm not quite sure what commends this image rather than any other". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. I meant more that nothing much commended it to me over other featured images, but that I certainly have no objection. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support -- Why not? As stated above it was acknowledged as "one of Wikipedia's best images". -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support, beautiful photo. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support, I see this photograph as artistic and well composed. I am also leary of censorship-based rationalizations against it. --Bark (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support, as per Bark. Honestly, the biggest reason to oppose is "eww, topless, gross!", but this really isn't any better or worse than the cover of half the magazines plainly visible at my local 7-Eleven. Resolute 14:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support, the picture does have EV, being used in the glamour photography article. Similar glamorous images would be found almost constantly in most western media, both printed and TV. The idea that others don't like it and might 'complain' is all the more reason to use it, to challenge the misconceptions of beliefs of those who practice sexism (gender discrimination). Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 15:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support, It's already been judged as featured image worthy, so judging its quality is not my task. Besides the fact that we are not censored, and besides the fact that full nudity has been on the front page before, and is so regularly in paintings without controversy, this doesn't even depict nudity. This image is 100% safe for US network primetime TV (not that this is the yardstick - indeed we have no yardstick - but simply for comparison), I cannot imagine that it is not suitable for Wikipedia. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 18:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support with blurb 1. The picture is not pornographic, in fact you see more in many daily newspapers here in the UK. The image itself has been deemed to be of a sufficient quality to gain FP status, so there's no real reason not to use it. Date suggested is appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support with either blurb. Per Mjroots, the picture shows no pornography (breasts are not visible). And I don't think beaches are not suitable for children because of people showing more than 90% of their skin bare. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 14:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support with either blurb . Is a FP, used in a article, part of a type of image we dont access very often, and is a very good example of the subject. Even in the US (by far the most prudish country i can image) there are 100 feet ads with people wearing much less than she is, so I dont see why that particulary image would be a problem. Béria Lima ^msg 14:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Assuming that "imagine" is the word you intended, Beria, then I conclude that you simply can't imagine countries like Saudi Arabia, or any other predominantly Muslim country in the world. There are dozens of them, and they are vastly more prudish than the USA. Arguably, many non-Muslim Asian countries are as well. It's a big world. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I see no reason to treat this image any differently to any other FP. None of the oppose !votes offer compelling reasons. It's just a photo, and doesn't show anything particularly offensive. No reason not to run it. If editors think it is not a very good photo or of dubious EV, then they should propose it is de-listed as an FP, not placed on some Main Page blacklist. Modest Genius ^talk 19:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support Every single oppose is about the content of the photo, not about its quality. We're not supposed to judge these matters based on our own personal values, merely upon quality. Personal values as to appropriateness differ on an individual basis, which is why such criteria are a terrible means to arrive at a consensus decision. Instead, we should be judging based primarly on objective measures of quality, not on personal values which others may not share. --Jayron32 11:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

• Strong oppose. Per my reasoning at Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day/Archive_4#Controversial_image_that_should_be_removed_from_POTD_queue. We really shouldn't put these kinds of things where people won't expect to see them (putting it in the glamor photography article makes sense, but on the Main Page?) --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 01:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"People come to POTD for landscapes and wilflife photos etc., not seminude pictures." Said who? She has panties, and breasts covered by hands, so where's the problem? "We shouldn't put these kinds of things where people won't expect to see them"? I guess that people who regularly browse Internet, watch TV or walk in the streets of civilized world should survive the view of our main page featuring this particular image. This is absolutely harmless photo, at least in my Euro-centric opinion. Apologies to all who swim in coats. No disrespect intended. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Jakob, with the due respect for your opinion, but you think that - as i said above - beaches are not suitable for children because there are a lot of women and girls who show so much bare skin? -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 14:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Everybody knows that that can be seen at a beach - and choose to avoid beaches for that reason if they so desire. But few people will be aware that this photo will be on the main page. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 15:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Seemingly a good point. But actually a no-point answer unless it can be demonstrated that the ones that don't go to the beach are the same that would see pornography in this photograph. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 16:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's on Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused for a reason. People strongly complained when it was run on Commons' Main Page, so I can only imagine the drama it would create if it was put on the en.wiki Main Page (which has orders of magnitude more visitors). Kaldari (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "Orders of magnitude"? Commons POTDs appear to regularly get over 50k clicks, whereas Wikipedia's TFA will get over 50k rarely. Perhaps that was true in 2009, but Commons seems to have gotten quite a following. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I think opinion of Ö there is very sensible. Jee 07:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Clicks is not the correct statistic to look at. Compare page views for the main pages. Kaldari (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Which is one order of magnitude, apparently. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Borderline EV; failed to found at Physical attractiveness where it was featured. Jee 02:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

And not in Michele Merkin too. So what the the relevance now? Jee 09:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• There's still be EV in glamour photography, though we would probably need to rework the paragraph a bit. The image was removed from Merkin's page owing to consensus at a talk page discussion, so not likely to be reinserted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• IMHO, review should take place at FPC; so we can't evaluate the EV in Glamour photography here. And we are bound to respect the consensus at article space. Now the image is removed from both articles where we access enough EV; so eligible for a delist. (This is not Commons; so quality of the work alone is not enough for FP/POTD.) Jee 09:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• POTD =/= delisting. So long as it's still listed, it's still eligible for POTD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This reminds me the African elephant incident. The article editors think a picture is not suitable; and we are pushing it through back doors without considering their opinion in FPC. Rarely we notify them about the review is going on except from my side. Good; carry on. Now I understand the problem is not of Commons alone as Signpost complained. :) Jee 10:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I am unfamiliar with that incident, and have no intention of pushing this image on the main editors at Merkin's article. Hence why the blurb has glamour photograph bolded, and why the blurb is likely going to focus on photography rather than Merkin. I dislike the implication that I am forcing anything on anyone, to be quite honest; that this discussion has been opened should be evidence against that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not questioning your intentions. But better be wise and postpone such cases if the article editors reject an FP. If there is EV in another newly invented place, it should be re reviewed. Just my opinion. Jee 10:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've added a second blurb above that may address your concerns. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Seriously? She's a lovely beautiful woman but until I see equal weight given to sexy male photography I can't support this. *sarcasm* But seriously... and ya'll can argue your brains out but really? This is going to start a shitstorm. SarahStierch (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and as someone who has worked in high fashion (I was a make-up artist) and worked with photographers (as an assistant) the white balance is too much in this image - from the water to the lighting on her skin - so there are my two cents there. I've also been in a few magazines, when am I gonna get on the front page of Commons? ;-) (I kid...I kid...) SarahStierch (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• The second point (about the imagery) is something for the FPC nomination (or delist nomination, as it would be). Once an image is determined to be an FP, currently there is no consensus for "this has x technical flaw, so it should not be run" decisions. I agree with your point about about having a male model being ideal, but for your "education versus swimsuit modeling"... what if the topic is swimsuit modelling, or glamour shots? Hence the second blurb. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sarah, I just would like to remark the fact that the photograph has been licenced for Commons by the model herself. At this point I assume she needs a period of rieducation in some camp to learn not to show herself in order to avoid looking disturbing? -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 16:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't mean much to me- it's fine she licensed it, and again, I worked in that industry, specializing in glamour, for ten years, but that doesn't mean I think it should be featured on the front page of the 5/6th most popular website which is struggling to retain editors, let alone attract more diverse people to edit. The image isn't even all that great - the best one's probably weren't freely licensed :) SarahStierch (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Kaldari. This isn't worth the impending shitstorm --Guerillero | My Talk 03:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It brings no value to the front page; it does not teach us about women's lives or even their anatomy. It sends the wrong message about Wikipedia. Harej (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an eight year old photo of a now 38 year old woman which is no longer in her biography. Why is POTD celebrating her birthday, anyway? I agree as well with SarahStierch, but admit I haven't checked the archive. Regulars, has POTD ever featured a "beefcake" style photo of a shirtless male hunk? If not, why not? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think we have one yet (though I'm sure if we had such an image of, say, Matthew McConaughey there would be much less opposition to running it). I'd love to have a beefcake image of a male model, but I don't think we do yet. As for her birthday, it is common for TFA and POTD to run images related to anniversaries, widely defined - which includes birthdays. Hence why our image of Arundhati Roy is scheduled for her birthday and Situation Room was run on the third anniversary of the image being taken. Other anniversaries celebrated in May are The Third of May 1808, the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House, and HMS Hood (51). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• My gosh, Crisco 1492, I was not asking why we commemorate anniversaries in general and every one of those you mentioned right above sounds like a wonderful commemoration of an important topic.. I was wondering why we are celebrating the birthday of such a minor figure as Michele Merkin? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• What is a birthday but an anniversary by another name? If you want exclusively birthdays, there's been Sarah Vaughan, Baldassare Castiglione, and Annkathrin Kammeyer so far this year. It is common, at both TFA and POTD. Now, as for this image particularly, I figured there'd be a very... lively... discussion and thus chose a date which was sufficiently far enough away for this discussion to be completed. Her birthday fit the bill. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Again, it appears from your response I haven't made myself clear, Crisco 1492. I have no objections to birthday commemorations per se and the first two people you mentioned are indisputably worthy of the honor. As for the third, she is interesting as an elected official of such youth, and the portrait is not sexualized. There is something abut the combination of the relative obscurity of this person (though I agree she is notable), the age of the photo of this living person who is now eight years older, and the overtly sexualized aspects of the image (which is clearly not pornographic) but may bother many people. I am not at all offended myself by the photo in the abstract, but it rubs me the wrong way in this specific context. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• You asked "Why is POTD celebrating her birthday, anyway?". You got an answer, and said it wasn't your point, and asked "I was wondering why we are celebrating the birthday of such a minor figure as Michele Merkin?". Another answer, a similar response. No mention until just now that all three in combination was an issue, or that the concept of birthday commemorations in general was not an issue. At a TFA nomination for a Confederate general's article (also to run on his birthday), there were similar concerns (although from another editor), so I thought it possible that some do not recognize why parts of the main page aside from OTD run such birthdays. My apologies, as I was mistaken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose I agree with SarahStierch and Cullen328. There are technically better and less overtly titillating images if we want to illustrate glamour photography (and seriously, why not beefcake?). Prominently featuring sexualized and unclothed images of women and not similarly-presented men on the front page creates the impression that Wikipedia is written by and for straight men. Fhocutt (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Find or create one and I would support that too. Resolute 04:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think we have one yet (though I'm sure if we had such an image of, say, Matthew McConaughey there would be much less opposition to running it). I'd love to have a beefcake image of a male model, but I don't think we do yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• This isn't nearly as objectifying as the image you have here but is the closest I found in a quick search: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carlsons.jpg Fhocutt (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• That's certainly in the right area. Below the size criteria and a little unsharp, but that's definitely the sort of image we'd look for at FPC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Per SarahStierch. It's not about censorship, it's about equality. Pbjamesphoto (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: Women's bodies are misused to sell too many things, wikipedia does not need to be one of them. Montanabw^(talk) 05:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: There's been commentary that it's not a particularly offensive image, that it could appear on a billboard in the UK, etc. I don't disagree with that, but isn't this an encyclopedia for the whole world? Isn't this image going to be more offensive in a lot of countries less liberal than the UK? Is it what people in Islamic countries want to see on the main page or want their children to see? I doubt it. The main page should be there to welcome all people to Wikipedia, not be a turn-away for them. There are plenty of photos on Commons that would be acceptable to all; why deliberately pick one that can be predicted to be offensive to a large chunk of the global population (even a chunk of the population of the UK)? Kerry (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem with "what the world wants to see" is that there is no standard. A simple image of Hillary Clinton with an unveiled face would be enough to cause problems in some countries, whereas an image of Clinton veiled would probably lead to negative feedback from Americans. This is, of course, setting aside the fact that some people believe any form of photography is iconistic, and should thus be avoided. If one judges all images by what someone, somewhere, believes is inappropriate, then one ends up with no images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Kerry - your concern for Muslims is misplaced. We already offend a lot of them by displaying images of Muhammad. Does that concern you? Have you complained about that? HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. This is not educational (an 8 year old pic of a woman now 38?), I don't think it's even shocking (this kind of image is really common in tabloids and rags). It's exploitative. Do we really need yet another media story about the ongoing systemic bias in English Wikipedia? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 07:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought that American religious conservatism and prudishness is a big part of our systemic bias. I am a massive opponent of systemic bias. I support the use of this image. HiLo48 (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not American. I oppose systemic bias (be it US-centric or gender-centric or Catholic-centric). And (thus) I oppose this image. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 21:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you please explain what part of our systemic bias you think is in play here? The part I see in play is conservative American religious prudishness. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• • Hence why there is another blurb, on glamor photography, in which it still has value. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    • But for a glam pic it is pretty low quality. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 21:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
      • That would be a reason to nominate it for delisting at WP:FPC; once an image passed FPC, POTD does not look into subjective considerations of aesthetics. Hence why I scheduled some recent images that don't particularly speak to me, but passed the process (case in point). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, I don't find it "offensive" as such, but it's a needlessly controversial image, especially coming after the recent "stack of corpses" fiasco. There are plenty of other great pictures we can choose from that won't annoy a whole bunch of people, lets use them instead. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC).
• Oppose. When deciding what to prominently display to our community, we are saying something about who we are and how others should see us, and deciding which people we'll be consistently friendly to. As Kaldari put it in the 2009 discussion, it would be better to make choices that avoid "objectifying women in a context that is supposed to be appealing to people of all different backgrounds, genders, ages, etc." I am a woman and I prefer to do work in places where my peers and I are not receiving visual cues to objectify women's bodies. Sumana Harihareswara 09:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's role as an encyclopaedia is surely to reflect and describe the world as it is. It's certainly not our job to right great wrongs. HiLo48 (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, it strikes me that the particular policy you are pointing to (part of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing) applies more to editing individual articles than to designing what experience we want visitors and editors to have overall. If treating women respectfully would not be a reflection of "the world as it is," then we should act better than the surrounding world. Sumana Harihareswara 09:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Where is the policy saying that we pretend things aren't as they really are? HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose It might be appropriate in some places - like in the Glamour photography article (which is, as an aside, a poor quality article) - but not on the front page. It objectifies women. Wikipedia needs more women editors. Let's not send that kind of message to Wikipedia readers (and potential editors). Lightbreather (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose If one is attempting to attract more female editors, then sadly, this will not help in doing that. I agree that it is great glamour photography, however, if you're going to put up a POTD of a female model in a glamour photograph (regardless of what she is wearing) then I can see this propelling further ideas about EN:WP and sexism. (Not saying this is "right" or "wrong," it's just how it is.) InfinityBird (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Here we go again. Anyway, it's a decent example of glamor photography. On the Glamour photography article, I would expect content like this. However, I don't think it should be a POTD. The Coca-Cola logo is a great example of logo design, and has a long history in culture. Modulo fair use, of course it should be part of Wikipedia. However, would we use the Coca-Cola logo -- the current one, not some historical curiosity -- as a POTD? I think not. There's no lack of Coca-Cola logos in the world today, and by displaying the image, Wikipedia would start to look like it was advertising for the company, and part of a commercial transaction. I think this image is similar. In 2014, glamor photography is already everywhere you look on the Internet, and is used to drive views to publications due to salacious interest, in a culture where actresses are expected to objectify themselves sexually for fame. It is inescapable that by prominently featuring this, Wikipedia starts to look more like it's engaged in, or supports, that kind of culture. NeilK (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Neil, you appear to be confusing Featured Picture with Picture of the Day. They are related, yet separate, processes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Crisco 1492, you are right. I was confusing the dictionary sense and the special Wikipedia sense. But I think it's clear I meant POTD. Amended. NeilK (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Kaldari and Lightbreather. It's a mediocre glamour photo of dubious EV, whatever is positive in its favor is dwarfed by the negatives. BalPhoto (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. If we want to attract and retain women editors, this is not the way to achieve it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have no problem with the image. Its standard model photography, but Sarah is right about it aesthetically.189.253.61.218 (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. A sexist photograph, and no educational content, so it's not covered by the overall mission of Wikimedia projects.--Aschmidt (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Does featuring this picture as english POTD in any way represent the best interests of Wikipedia? This discussion is a microcosm of the larger world: 1) people WILL find it offensive 2) it will NOT be considered appropriate viewing for school-age children or their teachers 3) it will NOT be considered appropriate for many professional workplaces 4) it WILL alienate potential editors 5) it is highly likely to generate bad publicity. These are predictable outcomes: none of them will benefit Wikipedia or enhance its credibility. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment All great points User:Mary Mark Ockerbloom, especially the educational situation - I have colleagues who tell me stories about the famous pornographic anime that was the POTD on Commons and teaching training courses on Wikipedia to librarians and pulling up Commons and there was image - all with the point of showing the mission and merits of contributing to Commons. Let's just say the response was one of shock and horror and nothing ever came from that partnership! SarahStierch (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Then such people are conservatives who we don't want at Wikipedia. Perhaps like several of the above posters, who are clearly seeking censorship, and pretending it's something else. Please go to Conservapedia. Find me a child, or teacher, for heavens sake, who has been damaged by such an image. (BTW, I am a teacher. I guess you will think I have been damaged. That's actually an insult.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Your comment must be read against the background of the American debate on pornography, I suppose. However, my vote does not come from this debate. Also, it has nothing to do with censorship because there is no such thing as a censorship in all-private projects.--Aschmidt (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the image in question is pornographic? HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

YMMV, but, as I already wrote, I do not share the Anglo-Saxon point of view on these matters. I just do not think the image is fit for the main page of an educational project, and I would not buy a paper with a photo like this on top neither because I do not like it when people are displayed in such poses for a commercial purpose, be it women or men. Again, this has nothing to do with censorship, it is simply a matter of taste and respect.--Aschmidt (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Good grief, let's not contribute to the objectification and sexualization of the female body, the use of Photoshop to produce ridiculously unrealistic and unattainable levels of female physical perfection and sexualization, and the objectification, exploitation, and subjugation of women in general. Why don't we have a (tastefully) nude photo of Hugh Jackman instead? Softlavender (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "Why don't we have a (tastefully) nude photo of Hugh Jackman instead?" - If one is donated (I doubt a Wikipedian would be in the right position) which meets the featured picture criteria, we'll certainly have a go at having it featured. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, and in case it wasn't obvious to anybody, that question was rhetorical and sarcastic. Softlavender (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, Wiio's laws hold very true on the internet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. "Appealing?" (2nd blurb) Appealing to what, to whom and in what way? The image is gratuitously sexual, and the description doesn't match it: if you wanted a picture that accurately matched the description, for a wide swathe of the population (not just a particularly skewed male demographic), then it would be a picture of jazzed up food. Could there be a more accurate indication of just how much of a gender problem the Wikipedia community has, than picking this kind of picture? Hildabast (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have edited the blurb to address your first concern, and for your food comment: that would no illustrate the concept of glamor photography, which focuses exclusively on humans. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I've already registered my !vote, but I'd like to also comment that rationalizing this as a POTD by saying it represents glamour photography is yet another reason this is ill-conceived, because that article is among the worst articles I've seen on Wikipedia -- inaccurate, full of uncited claims and WP:OR, severely incomplete and uncited, and in general an all-around mess. Why in the world would we want to call attention to a bad, skimpy, and inaccurate article? This seems very ill-advised at best. Softlavender (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree 100% with Softlavender. It is kind to call Glamour photography mediocre. All four references are hidden behind pay walls, and the article is packed full of questionable assumptions. I wrote a biography Fred R. Archer about a man who might be called a glamour photographer as he earned his living early in his career doing promotional portraits of Hollywood stars. The literature and history of this field is far richer than this article hints at, and the current version emphasizes the most sexualized aspects of the genre. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Point of order: could this please be moved a bit further south (i.e. in the next section), as it is commentary/further discussion? Second, I remind everyone that this is POTD, not AOTD; POTD is not, nor has it ever been, a vouch for the quality of the article; heck, there have been at times no standards for the length of the attached article (those days are over now, for the record). I agree that the glamor photography article needs work desperately (that a merge discussion is even being considered viable is further proof of your statement, Cullen), but that is outside the purview of POTD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Editorial discretion. wctaiwan (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

General comments

For the record, I am not suggesting censorship, just editorial judgement. Running this picture will undoubtedly shock many, if not most people and no one will expect shocking pictures on the Main Page (even if only because the POTD isn't usually shocking). --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 23:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Nice picture, no problem on that score, but debatable what its purpose is in an encyclopedia. 109.147.187.101 (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A great encyclopaedia should cover all significant areas of human endeavour and activities. We must not omit or suppress our coverage of areas that some here simply don't like. There are big industries surrounding images like the one under discussion. We must not ignore the field. This image is a perfect example of it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's just be honest about why we're putting it up there and write a blurb linking to fan service. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you rewrite that in plain English please? HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Daniel is assuming that we would be running such an image as fan service, and says that we should recognize that by linking to the article about fan service somewhere in the blurb. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• HiLo, you could also click the link to "fan service" and learn what it is, just as you bewail that people know nothing about systemic bias.

Who wrote that? Forcing people to click on links doesn't make it plain English and easy to read. And I'm not sure you do understand our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's ironic that you should ask for a "plain English" definition of fan service, since after all the term is a more or less literal translation of a Japanese term that itself is derived from English loanwords. Very well ...

At Wiktionary we define "fanservice" (why one word there and two here?), a term which originated in manga/anime fandom, as "[t]he inclusion in a work of fiction of any material, especially racy or sexual material, which has no relevance to the storyline, but is designed merely to excite the viewer". While our article treats the term as if it were purely still used only in its original context, it has in fact migrated out to be used in reference to all sorts of media, and frankly the TV Tropes page] and linked subpages are a better resource on the concept than our article. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Unencyclopedic, sexist and evidence of the continuing systemic bias in wikipedia. Not "shocking" just exploitative. Nothing but T&A. Montanabw^(talk) 05:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought that American religious conservatism and prudishness is a big part of our systemic bias. I am a massive opponent of systemic bias. I support the use of this image. HiLo48 (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have been considering contributing more to Wikipedia. I already don't feel like my contributions are welcome and I would feel even less welcome as a contributor if I saw this image as the PotD. Given the systemic biases of the site one cannot assume that viewers will be able to infer that this image was chosen for its EV and not as an excuse for sexist objectification. Fhocutt (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I'd love to have an image like that discussed above: a beefcake glamor shot. I'd be even happier with an illustration for LGBT subjects such as Bear (gay culture), Butch and femme, Yaoi, or Yuri (the whole subject area is terribly underrepresented at Featured Content). Sadly, we don't have any images that have passed yet; I've tried to nominated the lead image at Yaoi twice, but it's failed twice (the first time only by a hair). If we have any glamor photographers willing to donate shots of men, let me know. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I'll keep an ear out--there's been some awesome work done by queer photographers documenting their communities. I would suggest that an image like this not be run until and unless there is precedent for running sexualized images that aren't aimed at straight men. If that were already the case, I might feel differently about this one. Fhocutt (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I too have no problem in such images are reviewed as the best illustration of those topics. But here, the image in question, is never reviewed as the "best illustration to describe Glamour photography". It was reviewed as the "best illustration to describe Michele Merkin and Physical attractiveness"; but the editors at both the articles rejected it later. Jee 07:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: As part of Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2014, Wikimedia Commons will be hosting a photo challenge related to LGBT culture and history, during the month of June. This will be a great opportunity to upload images depicting LGBT subcultures, etc. I hope you will contribute to this worthwhile effort. --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've been hoping to participate. There's a pesantren with exclusively transgender students and staff... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    • @Another Believer, about LGBT topic, I have been contributing regularily (see ie here and here) -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 16:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• If we had a FP quality image of a Muslim woman wearing a niqab, would we post it? Of course we would! The quality of the picture is what should be under discussion, not whether or not somebody "might be offended". If Wikipedia makes it its mission not to offend anybody, we might just as well all pack up and leave. Mjroots (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comments

1. The old "not censored" argument is just that, old. Putting T&A doesn't prove anything at this point. I think we've proved our point with past images (dead bodies, Muhammad).
2. Do you really think that an image like this being on the front page of Wikipedia won't create a total media shit storm? And not in a good way? I already dread getting email from the press about this.
3. And on that note, do you think that this image will help bring more diversity in editorship to the project? Ask your mothers and sisters if they'd be interested in contributing to a project struggling to retain editors if they saw that as the welcome image. SarahStierch (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

1. That you do not like the "not censored" argument does not invalidate it. 2. No, there is no reason to expect any media coverage, let alone significant. Not based on some of the things we have run as TFA without comment. 3. Can't really respond to the third argument without being unduly dismissive, so I'll pass on that one. Resolute 00:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps if she were a dead body there would be no objections? Kidding aside, I am not opposed, but I would like to see the concerns over systemic bias addressed through a plan to feature a series of such images that would speak to a broader segement of our audience. The plan should also address concerns of over the principle of least astonishment. I would not have been shocked by this image on the main page but I would of a nude from that same genre. I say that recognising not everyone's line is in the same place. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

What's astonishing about exposed flesh? Been to the beach lately? HiLo48 (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Come on man, not everyone here is a "prudish American," that argument is so old. And have you been to a beach in Saudi Arabia? It's not all a skin show around the world... stop calling people prudes, it's mean. SarahStierch (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Calling people who oppose using this image prudes is like calling those who support using it perverts. Lightbreather (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations to both of you for misdirecting the conversation into an attack on me. What IS astonishing about the image? HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

However reluctantly, I must agree with HiLo - in which culture would this be censored, or considered offensive? Saudi Arabia, I will grant, but, with all due fairness and respect, Wikipedia is not run on Sharia law. I am frankly unclear why this is controversial, this is absolutely not nudity, and the vast majority of opposes have provided no explanation beyond a prediction that this will upset someone if it goes on the main page. There are also suggestions that this would be more acceptable if it were a male model - the very fact that this is so true that it's told as a joke should be grounds enough to justify this photo. In any case, "There might be unspecified main page spam" sounds a lot more like something I'd expect to see from editors with an axe to grind than it does a reaction I expect from a general public who sees images more explicit than this every time they stand in the check-out aisle. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 22:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, far too many of the Opposes have been of the form "This will upset somebody else" or "This will hurt children". The first is meaningless. Our policies aren't based on what someone thinks will upset someone else. If that were the case, we would remove all images of Muhammad from Wikipedia, because we KNOW they upset some Muslims. And the latter objection has never been proven. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

And HiLo48, far too much of the criticism of the opposes has been of the form, "Oh you Christian American prudes don't know what the beaches on the French Riviera (or Australia) are like" which is absurd categorizing and stereotyping. Though American, I am not a Christian, I know what beaches worldwide are like. I am completely comfortable with pornography featuring consenting adults, and I believe that our article on Sexual intercourse should have photographs like the tasteful books on sexuality published by Dorling Kindersley, instead of 100 year old "etchings" by Édouard-Henri Avril (which I like in other contexts). I do not think that any child has ever been hurt by seeing the cover of Maxim on a news stand, and do not want any censorship of any article here on sexuality. However, I also believe in editorial judgment, and think that featuring this kind of sexualized photo on the Main Page is in poor taste and risks needlessly offending people with no upside benefit whatsoever, except to allow a small group of editors to say "yay, no censorship!' to each other. Let Maxim do its own thing, and let Wikipedia be a generalist encyclopedia rather than a playground for pushy adolescent heterosexual males and an unfriendly place for very many women. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're calling me adolescent, why thank you. Presumably the lady in the image consented to it. What gives you the right to editorialise her out of Wikipedia? HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea of your age, HiLo48, and was not speaking of you as an individual but of the way some editors are perceived by many others. I am 62, for what it's worth, wear earrings, have an active sex life and appreciate the appearance of the opposite sex. I haven't questioned either her consent or her notability and would vote to "Keep" at AfD and also to keep the photo. So, I will take your "editorialise her out of Wikipedia" comment as hyperbole as opposed to a serious critique of my comments about editorial judgment about what appears on the Main Page as opposed to specific articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• • So long as we have featured images, they can be run... I've already re-nominated the Yaoi image, for better representation. Took a look at a couple other topics which don't interest the stereotypical white straight male (bear, femme and butch, etc) but none I've checked have anything that would survive the process. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    • But as I pointed above, when Howcheng handled POTD, he usually inform the article editors on the talk page. I don't know whether you also practicing it. Here in this case they may not have any comments as they already removed this picture from their articles. :) Jee 18:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Jee, you said "Rarely we notify them about the review is going on except from my side." with a link to the Wikiproject, which came across as saying that one should notify the Wikiproject about nominations. If you are unaware whether or not I notify an article's main editors by posting at the talk page, it would only take 30 seconds to verify that yes, I do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Crisco: Oops; this was what I mean. Sorry; I failed to notice it. Jee 02:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
          • No worries. Yes, I cross posted to WT:MP, WT:FPC, T:Michele Merkin, and T:Glamor photography. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I question the validity of the license to use this photo. The photographer never signed off on it or emailed any Wikipedia editor signing off on it or releasing it to the public domain. Evidently Merkin (the model) emailed the photo to a Wiki editor, not realizing she had to provide PROOF that the PHOTOGRAPHER signed off on public-domain use. I see no evidence at all that the photographer has any idea it was released to Wikipedia. Wikipedia could get in a lot of legal trouble for reproducing the photo so widely and prominently without his permission. Softlavender (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I took a look and User:Jamesofur did the research - we also have an OTRS message from the photographer verifying that it is OK to release the photo and so forth. SarahStierch (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, to answer your question... I have been to many beaches in many countries. Flesh is not shocking to me, nor is the fact that people have bowel movements, but I don't want to see that on the front page either. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Silly response. Obviously exposed flesh is legal and publicly acceptable in a lot of very civilised parts of the world. Public excretion isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)