Talk:Woman/sandbox

Archives

For reference: Manual of Style: Lead Image
See also: Man lead image gallery

See Talk:Human FAQ for image guidance

Also note the Wired story, "How Wikipedia portrayed humanity in a single photo" Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

Here are some potential images currently under consideration as the lead image of the Woman article:

Pre-RfC Discussion

Please consider the original photos and other possible crops and corrections as options for an RfC. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to post any image editing requests on my talk page. nagualdesign 20:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Butternut

The page has been vandalized, and the image chosen was not from the agreed upon pool. Please fix it. 66.186.201.240 (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which images should we include in the RfC?

I'd like to narrow this list down. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is now at least the 2nd time you've "archived" previous discussion on this page about this very topic. I get the feeling that you don't like the direction all those discussions went, and want to just completely restart again and again by wiping the slate clean. This is highly disruptive use of talk pages. -- Netoholic @ 11:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for referencing the 2019 and 2007-2010 discussions per Help:Archiving a talk page#Continuing discussions. Please see the Archive box above. Everyone is welcome to add back any of those images for consideration, and hopefully this time we will achieve consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive an ignorant newbie, what is the RfC? Joe (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JoePhin: See Wikipedia:Requests for comment. nagualdesign 18:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Nagualdesign:. Also, nice name, it's funky! Joe (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nagualdesign, did you have any thoughts on which photos should be eliminated to simplify the RfC? Too many choices can interfere with finding consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with the second or third, based purely on composition, but I'd rather keep my nose out of what will no doubt be a contentious RfC. nagualdesign 20:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, may I ask you the same question as above? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have a group photo and not focus on one person to represent "Woman". The group could be a mix of ages and ethnic reps. Must be hundreds of available images which show a representative mix of women. And for Man too rather than just this guy. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like that causes even more problems because then the expectation is to represent all diversity, when the image is only supposed to represent a woman. See the FAQ section at the bottom of the templates at Talk:Human. I think we should keep things simple and consistent. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a problem, as it doesn't have to include everyone. The cast of any recent Housewives of Planet Earth would do it if we don't mind ignoring older women. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, but this planned RfC has been years in the making, so I'd like to stay serious. I'm trying to improve on what we have as simply as possible, but if you have a specific image to propose adding or removing please let me know. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it seems that a group photo would be a good solution we did have that at one time and it was a constant headache because people constantly added, deleted, exchanged photos and it was hard to justify deleting the new changes. Gandydancer (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So the planned RfC will pick one woman of all women to represent women on Wikipedia. Should be quite the discussion, one for the watch list. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please read the FAQ at Talk:Human for rationale. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it before my last reply above. What stood out is how it was selected, "This image was simply the first one an editor found which depicted adult male and female humans, standing side-by-side, in a high-quality, full-color, free-use photograph" and that its title started with 'A'. I'd say that was a great serendipitous, if semi-accidental, choice. Hopefully this RfC goes as easy (I also read the two last attempts linked above, quite the discussions). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the previous discussions and the 'Human' answers to the questions, and to finally answer your question, number 2 above is definitely a contender. A nice average woman, could imagine or see many nationalities, and the personality of the image comes across well. Thanks for including her. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn, what do you think of this version of image 2? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yours seems better, if only because the blouse is probably the original color and not photomanipulated into another color entirely (not a big fan of image manipulation). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases photoshopped images are preferable to the originals, provided that they don't misrepresent the subject (eg, [1], [2], [3]). The main point here is to illustrate what a woman looks like, and the colour of the blouse was a bit distracting in that image to be fair. nagualdesign 15:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who missed it, the colour of the blouse in image 2 has been altered from a deep red and black striped to a pale whiteish and black striped. nagualdesign 15:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I lean towards 3 mainly because it contains more of the overall body. It's not an absolute, but if a reference image can include the whole body that's generally preferable. If possible, I'd like to change the current Woman and Man images to something more full-bodied, but of course, it's up to everyone. Joe (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Although either image (2 or 3) are fine by me, if other images are sought it's probably worth looking for ones that show a full body. nagualdesign 15:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it seems somewhat clear that 2 or 3 are the best of these (I think 3 is probably better), but is this all we're going to get? Not that I have any suggestions, but there's surely more choice out there, no? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your post I tried looking for suitable alternatives. Unfortunately, a search for "woman" on flickr [1] shows mostly glamorous and artistic photos. It's a similar story when searching for "woman" on Google Images [2], with the list of suggested search terms including beautiful, beach, most beautiful, pregnant and chest. I tried narrowing the scope to full-length portraits with the subject facing forward by adding the terms "full frontal" but... Suffice to say it's harder than you might imagine. nagualdesign 20:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some photos of ordinary women standing around: full length, three-quarter length, three-quarter length, waist length, mid-torso length, shoulder length, face only. Cheers, gnu 57 21:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second one in that list is kind of decent. I mean, now that I think of it 3 (in the main post at the top) is probably fine. I'd be happy with that on the page so there's no real reason to break our backs looking for more if that one's fine. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is everyone ok with this proposed RfC using images #2, #3, and the current image? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Several images candidates from the the previous discussions that you independently "archived" gained support. I feel like your pressuring this discussion to limit the choices to 3 that you've uploaded is pushy and devalues all that prior work. -- Netoholic @ 19:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not going to select any specific image from Archive 1 (2007-10) or Archive 2 (2019) which you feel has not been adequately discussed over the years, I have to assume that you are merely being disruptive. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to ask - why are so many of your presented options of the exact same woman? -- Netoholic @ 06:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you not answering my question because there was no truth to your claim that there are "several image candidates from the previous discussions" which still have support? I am taking this discussion about your disruptive comments to your talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 2019 discussion literally has a Talk:Woman/sandbox/Archive 2#Finalists section which is pretty convincing evidence that some images had support. The final word on that discussion was again by you when you posted one of those "Finalist" images up on the main talk page for a vote (archived at Talk:Woman/Archive 12#Should the current lead image be replaced with this one?) which failed to gain support for the change. I'm asking about the criteria you are basing your suggested image choices on. I feel like most people would narrow their choices to the single best image of a particular individual rather than posting three and then trying to present an RFC that uses two of those vs the current image. I also don't like that this discussion is being held on a sandbox page away from typical page watchers (yes, you've posted about it, but holding discussion here doesn't trigger watchlists and increased participation. Don't call my hesitancy about your process here "disruption" because you devalue that term by doing so. -- Netoholic @ 12:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, those images in the archive failed to gain support. When you misrepresent the archiving process and claim that the images still have support, you are being disruptive, and this is a conversation to continue at User Talk:Netoholic#Disruption at Woman lead image discussion.

It was not my idea to post the finalist image, "pink shirt", up for a vote, see SunCrow's comment where they said they were fine with Levivich's plan.[3] It was a group effort.

The proposed RfC is right on the main talk page for everyone to see: Talk:Woman#Proposed RfC Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netoholic: I suggest that you simply nominate whichever image(s) from previous discussions that you would like to include. nagualdesign 22:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Butternut: Having read through Archive 2 I suggest that you include 'pink shirt 2' in the next RfC, unless you have a good reason not to. nagualdesign 23:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagualdesign: "Pink shirt 2" was proposed in this discussion at Talk:Woman and there was no consensus to use it. I don't know that we should try it again. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having reread that discussion, I'm not convinced that we shouldn't include it again. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you're going to include it then? I really think you should. It gained a lot of support in more than one discussion, and for valid reasons. While it's good to have a 'pre-RfC discussion' in order to shortlist the options to some degree, I think it's best to let the wider community decide (the whole purpose of an RfC), and avoid excluding sensible options in what are effectively 'behind closed doors' discussions. To be honest, I find the whole idea of using a sandbox in this way to be at odds with the principles of Wikipedia, even if it is linked to on the talk page. I'm not complaining, I'm just suggesting that, under the circumstances, it's probably a good idea to err on the side of caution. If the image falls at the final hurdle, so be it. nagualdesign 00:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagualdesign: see below :-)

I would like to reformat this discussion, so maybe that would be a good opportunity to move this to the main talk page. I'm not sure what would be the best way to display the images and then eliminate options without losing the context of the discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Butternut: I still like these two mentioned last time around -->
File:Ahom Woman.jpg
Cheers, gnu 57 15:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What do others think? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That second image is very good quality. nagualdesign 16:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She is facing the wrong way. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly cannot tell if you're being serious, but in case you are I will point out that the page you linked to is only a guideline, and the specific point to which you're referring - "It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text" - is an extremely minor issue. Essentially, if there were two images of the same person, one facing left and the other facing right, the one facing left would be preferable. If a left-facing image isn't available it really isn't a big deal. nagualdesign 22:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both are race-specific, which is why the original number 2 above seems a good choice. I really can't tell what nationality she is and, depending on how I look at it, the image seems to contain many races. A blended average woman of average age and weight seems a good choice to represent women. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of agree with your point, but that's not a good reason to exclude the image from an RfC, otherwise there'll be calls to have an RfC about which images to include in the RfC. Here, we ought be be inclusive about any images that get a single note of approval. nagualdesign 22:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally we would narrow down the choices, because the fewer images in the RfC the simpler it will be. My feeling is that the woman on the right is too young and glamorous, and I would prefer a more ethnically ambiguous woman. The woman on the left I find distractingly disheveled. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow down the choices by all means, but do so by excluding images which lack any support rather than imposing any personal preferences, otherwise you might end up making things more complicated, including opening yourself up to accusations of ownership. nagualdesign 00:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We could try "pink shirt 2" again which had been proposed in this discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved all of the images over to Talk:Woman and created a new section: Talk:Woman#Image candidates for RfC which will be more visible to everyone. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose changing image

Collapsed trolling by blocked sock Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was directed here after being reverted at the main article. I would like to propose that the lead image in the article be changed to be more inclusive of all women. I believe that this image would fulfill this purpose:

Mistyjee (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. 2600:1700:2200:F70:9025:A709:67B3:F311 (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image of the page "woman" should be a woman. This is a man. 2A01:CB05:8B24:7E00:7E02:8691:5666:A97F (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I whole-heartedly agree that including such a brave and successful woman would help promote inclusivity, diversity, and truth. All things that Wikipedia supports, correct? 173.237.89.173 (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. It is not promoting anything. 121.214.232.136 (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who claims that Levine is a "brave and successful woman" is a sarcastic genius.

That was a chef's kiss gif reply. 2600:1700:2200:F70:49FB:850:641E:C28E (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Principles for future lead images

In principle, I'd be happy to see the lead image for Woman change on a regular schedule. I kind of feel sorry for whomever gets stuck being the face of womanhood, and no single image does full justice to the women of the world.

That said, I wonder if we should first settle some general principles instead of just voting on a set of pictures. For example:

Do we prefer to require that the lead image be a Featured Picture at Commons? See c:Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women for a gallery. There's also c:Commons:Valued images by topic/People (deemed most useful for Wikipedia) and c:Commons:Quality images/Subject/People (deemed most technically perfect).
Do we prefer a color image, or would a black-and-white photo by okay?
Do we prefer for the lead image to show one woman, or would it be better to find an image with two or three women?
Do we prefer for the lead image show a public figure (e.g., a politician, musician, celebrity) or a more anonymous "everywoman"?
Do we prefer a head shot or a full-length image?
Do we prefer a particular age (e.g., young, middle aged, older)?
Do we prefer a portrait or a photo showing a woman doing something?
Do we prefer everyday clothing or is something more specialized okay (e.g., an athletic uniform, a costume, a swimsuit, a ballgown)?
Do we prefer a modern image (e.g., taken in the last few decades) or is a historical image okay (e.g., from 100 years ago)?
Roughly 60% of the world lives in Asia, 20% in Africa, 10% in Europe, and in the 10% North and South America. Since more than half the women in the world live in some part of Asia, should we prefer an image of an Asian woman?

Some of these questions are about the content, and others are about the form. I think that if we said "Bring us your examples of color head shots that have been recognized as FP, VI, or QI on Commons, preferably showing one middle-aged woman of Asian or African descent in her everyday clothes", we'd have better discussions than if we said "Sure, whatever – anything goes".

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]