Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NeilK (talk | contribs) at 16:53, 14 May 2014 (→‎Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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
    Overlayed
  • Side by side
    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)[reply]
  • 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)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Discussion regarding possible picture of the day: Michele Merkin

First blurb

Michele Merkin
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
Archive – More featured pictures...

Second blurb

Michele Merkin
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 appealing image of the subject.Photo courtesy of: Michele Merkin
Archive – More featured pictures...
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Support -- Why not? As stated above it was acknowledged as "one of Wikipedia's best images". -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, beautiful photo. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]


Oppose

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And not in Michele Merkin too. So what the the relevance now? Jee 09:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. Nice shot, but, education versus swimsuit modeling is quite different... and ya'll can argue your brains out but really? Women might not feel the same way. This is going to start a shitstorm. SarahStierch (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Per SarahStierch. It's not about censorship, it's about equality. Pbjamesphoto (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Where is the policy saying that we pretend things aren't as they really are? HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 featured. 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 featured image? I think not. There's no lack of Coca-Cola logos in the world today, and by featuring the image, Commons 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, Commons starts to look more like it's engaged in, or supports, that kind of culture. NeilK (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Could you rewrite that in plain English please? HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day&oldid=608567351"