Talk:Woman/sandbox/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lead image

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

Finalists

• 
  pink shirt2
• 
  Bread store (cropped)
• 
  hut (hands)

Remaining choices

• 
  current lead image
• 
  Flowers
• 
  pink/blue dress
• 
  pink shirt
• 
  cardigan
• 
  heart necklace
• 
  plunge top
• 
  dyed textured hair
• striped pants
  striped pants
• fence
  fence

Crops

• 
  hut (original)
• 
  hut (full body)
• 
  hut (knees)
• 
  hut (hands)
• 
  hut (waist)
• 
  pink/blue dress (full body)
• 
  pink/blue dress (hands)
• 
  pink/blue dress (waist)

Images eliminated from consideration

The following images have been eliminated from consideration following discussion and consensus.

Eliminated 09:38, 15 June 2019

• 
  India
• 
  Ao dai
• 
  dancing
• 
  smiling
• 
  Pitchfork
• 
  Veil
• 
  Braid
• 
  Ramallah woman
• 
  Tai chi

Eliminated 01:56, 8 June 2019

• 
  former lead image
• 
  scarf
• 
  Arabic filename
• 
  Sideways with bandana
• 
  William Blake-Europe Supported By Africa and America 1796
• 
• 

Criteria

There is no perfect image that will satisfy everyone, but we can continue to improve our choice. The consensus is generally that we'd like a natural, average woman.

Things considered in past discussions:

• Gallery vs single image (MOS favors single image)
• Real woman rather than artistic representation
• Nudity level
• Full body photo vs less
• Race
• Age
• Facial expression
• Culture and cultural signifiers
• Activity- whether inactive, laboring, playing, posed
• Attractiveness
• Class
• Stereotypes, gender expression, NPOV
• Body hair
• Props
• Modifications (piercings, tattoos, makeup)
• Unknown vs celebrity
• Color vs grayscale

Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

My preferences on the criteria would be:

• Single image
• Real woman
• Clothed – a "top" and a "bottom" but I don't really care what the clothing is; I think most people, in most of the world, most of the time, wear a "top" and a "bottom" (and footwear) of some kind
• "Most" of the body (not just a headshot, but it doesn't have to be the entire body)
• Preferably ambiguous race, or mixed race, what I'm trying to get at is "average" race, though there is no such thing really
• Average age, or middle-age, not very young, not very old (apparent age 30–70, say)
• Happy or neutral facial expression
• Cultural signifiers not overwhelming (I think it'll be impossible to find a picture of an actual human without some cultural signifiers)
• The activity should not be the focus of the image; I would say not laboring, not posed; standing, sitting, walking are OK; dancing is OK with me too, though I realize that kind of violates my own principles here
• Average attractiveness – attractiveness (or unattractiveness) should not be distracting (so not exceptionally beautiful or ugly)
• Average class or indeterminate class... nobody in a top hat or rags
• I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "stereotypes, gender expression, NPOV" ... but it's not important to me whether the woman is wearing a skirt or pants, or makeup (or not), or whether the woman is a trans woman or not (and I don't think you can tell that from a photograph), but it should not be a picture of a man in drag, even if he looks like a woman :-)
• Body hair would not be a relevant consideration for me because of the clothed requirement
• Props should not be distracting, but are not necessarily a deal-breaker for me
• Modifications should also not be to a distracting extreme... tattoos and piercings in and of themselves don't bother me, but not to the point where it's a main focus of the image; so, a full-face tattoo would probably be too much
• Preferably not a recognized celebrity
• Definitely must be color, that's probably my most important "requirement"

Thanks to everyone contributing to this discussion! Leviv ich 19:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I basically feel the same way as Levivich above, although:

• Footwear may not be necessary;
• I might prefer a woman younger than 60;
• I agree cultural signifiers shouldn't be overwhelming, but I don't think they should necessarily be avoided;
• I feel the same way about activity, but the context of an activity within the photo might be ok;
• Not extremely feminine or masculine;
• No to light makeup
• Body hair, such on legs and armpits, would be ok if not distracting;
• I forgot to mention time period. I think it should be current or at least not noticeably dated.

Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

For example, let's not use this one

I'm not concerned at all about the woman's race, class, or attractiveness: I think the benefit of choosing a photograph over a painting is that it depicts a single individual, who happens to have some particular set of attributes, but isn't in any way intended to be an ideal for all women. So all my pickiness involves the composition of the picture and what the woman is doing, but not the basic fact of who she is.

I think that the picture should convey some basic information about women, like "women have faces", "women have bodies", and "women wear clothes", so I'd be opposed to, say, an action shot that caught only a sliver of her face.

I think that there shouldn't be anything else in the image which might possibly mislead someone who'd somehow never seen a woman: so no pictures of women talking with men or carrying children, although there are many beautiful ones on commons. I had been thinking this meant no action shots as well, but I kind of like the one of the middle-aged woman doing tai chi.

I was thinking it would be good to avoid mugging for the camera, cheesy poses, and staged stockphotos, so I looked through lots of the street photography on commons. But it occurred to me that it would be pretty weird to wake up one day and find a picture of yourself that you never knew had been taken stuck in a prominent place on Wikipedia as an example of your gender. So I would prefer one where it's clearly not a creepershot, and she looks like she knows she's being photographed.

Datedness: please let's not choose someone with stereotypical "hip millennial" fashion and makeup. (google image search) Other than that, I'm not worried about when the photo was taken. (I think the Ramallah woman one is quite old, but not unsuitable). Cheers, gnu57 21:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with the criteria mentioned above, esp. not a painting and not nude. And would like to add: not visibly pregnant. I was thinking a good generational photo (young woman, middle-aged, older woman) might be nice but couldn't find any on commons that worked with all of the other criteria. Schazjmd (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Choices

Please see Talk:Man/sandbox#Next steps? for my suggestion for proceeding with both the Man and Woman lead image choices. Editors' thoughts would be much appreciated. – Levivich 19:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

My candidates for elimination:

1. former lead image (painting, not photo)
2. scarf (b&w)
3. William-Blake Europe (painting, not photo)
4. Flowers (just headshot)
5. unlabeled (nude, pregnant)
6. unlabeled2 (nude)
7. bread store (hard to notice the person in the middle with all the distracting bright colors around her)
8. sideways with bandana (too close up)

Those are the only ones I find easy to toss out. Schazjmd (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

My list of eliminations below. I would prefer better cropping for a bunch of the rest (like "Bread store").

1. former lead image (not a photo)
2. scarf (b&w)
3. Arabic filename (appears too unhappy)
4. sideways with bandana (too close)
5. Braid (age)
6. William Blake (not a photo)
7. flowers (headshot, distracting flowers, beautiful pic though)
8. unlabeled1 (nudity, pregnancy)
9. unlabeled2 (nudity) – Levivich 23:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

My proposed exclusions:

1. former lead image (not a photo, idealized)
2. scarf (b&w)
3. Arabic filename (poor quality)
4. bread store (all photos clearly of vendors look like tourist photos to me) Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
5. William Blake (not a photo, white supremacist, etc...eeesh)
6. Ramallah woman (poor quality, unnatural colors, ceremonial clothing, dated)
7. flowers (unnatural clothing, unnatural environment, stock photo)
8. unlabeled1 (nude with no context, the photo and the woman herself are focused on the pregnancy)
9. unlabeled2 (dark, idealized, unnatural environment, unnatural clothing) Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I would eliminate the following:

1. former lead image (not a photograph; nudity)
2. dancing (not a good picture)
3. Arabic filename (very serious facial expression)
4. smiling (eyes are closed)
5. Sideways with bandana
6. Pitchfork
7. William Blake-Europe Supported By Africa and America 1796 (racially controversial; not a photograph; nudity; see WP:LEADIMAGE)
8. unlabeled1 (nude pregnant woman; see WP:LEADIMAGE)
9. unlabeled2 (topless woman; see WP:LEADIMAGE)

SunCrow (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• No image in the lead - There is consensus that we should not have galleries for articles about subjects that represent very large populations. The rationale, as given by Sandstein: "lacking objective criteria, it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery, that this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict, and that a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people". Now then, how exactly are these issues resolved by replacing a gallery with a single image? (copying this to the Talk:Man/sandbox too). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that we eliminate the following images (there appears to be consensus for their elimination):

1. former lead image
2. scarf
3. Arabic filename
4. sideways with bandana
5. William Blake
6. flowers ("saved" by request below – Levivich 20:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC))
7. unlabeled1
8. unlabeled2

The following images have not been specifically objected to:

1. current lead image
2. Ao dai
3. hut
4. Veil
5. Tai chi
6. India
7. pink/blue dress

Please note I cropped "bread store" above, in case that changes anyone's mind (it received 2/4 exclusion !votes). FWIW, dancing, smiling, pitchfork and braid each received 1 exclusion !vote. – Levivich 20:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, – Levivich. The "bread store" image is 100 times better now that you cropped it. I would actually support that one as the lead image now. Regarding exclusions, I would like to save the "flowers" image from elimination if possible. SunCrow (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Flowers only got 3/4 !votes, one of which is mine, and I'm happy to "withdraw" mine so it's not eliminated in this round. So I struck it from the list above. – Levivich 20:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, – Levivich!

Remove from consideration the following as they do not depict enough dimensions of woman to warrant consideration: current lead image, Ao dai, scarf, hut, Arabic, Sideways with bandana, Pitchfork, Bread store (cropped), veil, braid, ramallah woman, Tai chi, flowers, india (depicts too many figures also), pink/blue dress. A man or girl could dress in the same manner in the same location and pose, and so the image does not do enough to show a distinction between the man and woman (or woman and girl). -- Netoholic @ 03:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC) Also remove "smiling" because the eyes are closed. -- Netoholic @ 11:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Picking favorites

We still have too many options to easily rank, but perhaps we could rank our top half dozen favorites, or however many we would like to be considered? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Works for me, Kolya Butternut. My list is as follows (with number one being my top pick):

1. Flowers
2. Bread store (cropped)
3. Hut (but only if the image were cropped) EDITED 6-9-19: HUT (HANDS)
4. Braid

SunCrow (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

My top 4:

1. Bread store (cropped)
2. Ao dai
3. Smiling
4. pink/blue dress

Schazjmd (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

My (Kolya) favorites:

1. smiling preview (Con: eyes closed, young. Pro: cosmopolitan, average, the first impression that may come to mind is simply "woman/girl, happy".)
2. hut (cropped) (Con: disheveled clothing may be distracting, not cosmopolitan.)
3. Braid (Con: young, not cosmopolitan)

I like these three because they are not engaged in any activity, they are not wearing ceremonial clothing, most of their body is in frame, their heads are uncovered, they are photographed at human shelters. Bread store (cropped) is a very lovely photo, but only her face is visible; there is no sense of a female figure.

Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot bring myself to rank within this group. My group of favorites (in no particular order) are: Bread store (cropped), pink shirt, hut (any crop), Ao dai (any crop), and pink/blue dress (any crop). – Levivich 06:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

How about if we now limit the choices to (including crops):

• Bread store
• pink shirt (multiple versions?[1])
• hut
• Ao dai
• smiling
• pink/blue dress Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  Works for me. – Levivich 00:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

If everyone agrees to these six finalists, we can now discuss our detailed thoughts on each photo. Personally I would be ready to go with pinkshirt2 and outdoors (man). Pinkshirt2 is more formal than I would like, but there's often a trade-off between natural and professional looking photos. There is a clear parity between this and outdoors, right down to the blurred background. Ao dai looks too young and she appears to be wearing a wedding dress. Pink/blue dress is unnaturally posed and staged; her nail polish on her oddly raised hand even matches her outfit. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

So now I think I'd rank them as 1. pink shirt2, 2. pink shirt, 3. bread store (cropped), 4. hut (any crop). The others I would remove from consideration because: Ao dai is low-resolution, especially cropped, and also due to the wedding dress bit. Smiling has eyes closed. Pink/blue dress is too posed. – Levivich 05:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

SunCrow, do you like pink shirt2? It looks like three of us do. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, sorry for slow response. I am fine with pink shirt2. SunCrow (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Of the six images currently under consideration, I am fine with pink shirt2, hut, and bread store. I would eliminate pink shirt (not a very good picture), Ao dai (not a very good picture, and the woman looks young enough that she might not be an adult), pink/blue dress (does the head scarf indicate a religious affiliation?), and smiling (eyes are shut).SunCrow (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, where do you believe we should go from here? I just looked at the article talk page and noticed that you set up this page to "narrow down our choices prior to an RfC". Do you believe we have narrowed them down enough to start an RFC on the article talk page? Is six images a small enough number, or do you think we should narrow the group down further? The discussion has gone on for awhile, and I want to see if we can bring it to a conclusion. SunCrow (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I did initially intend to do an RfC, but I don't think it makes sense to have one now because we don't have a disagreement over our finalists. I also feel like we haven't found enough plain images to choose from. There appears to be no opposition to pink shirt2, except Rhododendrites who wants no lead image. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, couldn't we still do an RfC and put all the "finalists" out there for discussion? Alternatively, if there is consensus here for pink shirt2, couldn't we do an RfC and ask people to vote up or down on pink shirt2? I just don't want people to feel that there has been a bait and switch, which they might if we don't do an RfC after you said that there would be one. I don't have an axe to grind; I am just trying to make the process as drama-free as possible. Also, I do not know what you mean by "plain images" to choose from. Could you please clarify? Thanks. SunCrow (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

These are all good things to discuss. I used the term "plain images", but maybe it would be more fair to say there aren't enough images that fit my personal criteria, which I see as attempting to communicate simply "woman" as much as possible. If an RfC were to focus more on the criteria of the image than the image itself, I think that would be a good idea, so that the RfC wouldn't prevent people from changing the image in the future to better fit the consensus criteria. If we don't have an RfC and someone came along and wanted to change the image, we wouldn't be in a better situation than if we do have one would we? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

We could do what Levivich suggested[2] after the RfC, or instead of it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with the – Levivich idea of posting Pink shirt2 on the talk page with the question: should the current lead image be replaced with this one? SunCrow (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I created a #Crops subsection at the top and added several crops of Hut. In the original picture, the lower-left corner has the rear-end of what I assume is a cow (I'm not great at identifying animal species from this angle). So, a full-body crop has to be very tall/skinny to keep the cow's rear out of the picture, and that I think might give the picture an awkward aspect ratio. I then did crops at the knees, hands, and waist with a more common 3:4 ratio. One concern I have is that the closer you crop, the lower the quality gets (because the original picture was taken with a rather wide angle). Nevertheless, crops can really change a picture around, and particularly so for the full-body images like Ao dai and pink/blue dress (which could be similarly cropped at various points). If anyone else wants me to post crops, just let me know and I'm happy to do it. I still have to think a bit about what my top choices are before I can post them, but a big question for me is, are we looking for full-body, knees, hands, waist, or just head-and-shoulders is OK, or it doesn't matter? – Levivich 20:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on these images, – Levivich. For what it's worth, I think the hut (hands) image is the best of the crops you did of that image. SunCrow (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I think a full body photo is best. Most lead images of animals show the full body. I feel like a bust or headshot focuses more on the personality than the concept of "woman". If you preview the article with hut (full-body crop) it actually looks fine even though it's skinny. I do however prefer sitting photos for their composition, closeness, and because people are more likely to be inactive while sitting than standing. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I added more crops above, plus the "pink shirt" photo. – Levivich 06:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a head and shoulders shot is ideal, but am OK with one if it is a good picture. I am fine with any of the other options ranging from waist to full body. SunCrow (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, had you considered the version of "pink shirt" which includes most of her body? [3] Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen that one, thanks for pointing it out! That's a good one. Added to the gallery. – Levivich 00:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, pinkshirt2 is a nice one! Schazjmd (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that I agree with Rhododendrites that having no lead image is best in this case. I also agree with what Rhododendrites stated at Talk:Man/sandbox -- that having one image as the lead image for this topic is significantly more insufficient than when editors tried to use a gallery/montage for the lead imagery at the Woman article. I stated the same thing at Talk:Woman. At Talk:Man/sandbox, Netoholic is right about frequent discussions on this. They will keep happening. There will always be someone to come along and feel that a different lead image is best. This type of things happens at a lot of articles, but especially for articles that are about a large group/specific group of people. Images that tie the person to a specific culture, like the above hut image, can hardly be representative. And MOS:LEADIMAGE is about selecting a representative image. And regarding the "race" discussion in the "Next steps?" section at Talk:Man/sandbox, Netoholic has a point about editors wanting to exclude white people. We can see above that white people have also been excluded with regard to a lead image for the Woman article. It seems that two editors, Kolya Butternut and Levivich, want an image of a non-white person simply because readers are likelier to expect an image of a white person; this is in contrast to what MOS:LEADIMAGE states. And instead of having the "Which lead image to use matter?" be an RfC, with a selection of images, like what was done for the Blond article, allowing for non-involved editors to weigh in, which lead image to use is being decided on by a few editors here at Talk:Woman/sandbox and Talk:Man/sandbox. I understand that the current lead image for the Woman article was also decided on by a small, involved group. But the decisions in these latest cases are based on things that the wider Wikipedia community would no doubt disagree with, such as "no white people." And, yes, I know that the vast majority of Wikipedia is edited by white males, but still. Even if the ultimate goal is to start RfCs at the article talk pages after cutting down the selections, there is no guarantee that editors will want to choose from the image selections offered. One or more editors might suggest alternatives. Anyway, whichever lead images are used as a result of these discussions, I'm not going to object. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, regarding your concern about other editors coming along and thinking that a different image is best: Once a decision is reached and a new image is added, we can insert some hidden language in the article notifying editors that the decision was made following a lengthy discussion and requesting that editors seek discussion on the talk page before removing or replacing it. Hopefully, that will limit future disagreements. SunCrow (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

SunCrow, I know that that's an option; editors did it for the Scarlett Johansson article and for the Blond article, for example. I'm just saying that the matter of what lead image to use will continue to be debated for the Man and Woman articles. For reasons I mentioned in these sandboxes, I think the debates are likely to happen more so in the case of the Man and Woman articles than in the case of the Scarlett Johansson and Blond articles. But, yes, a hidden note might help limit future disagreements. Again, like I noted with my "02:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)" post below, there is no need to ping me to this page since it's currently on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You stated that I "want an image of a non-white person simply because readers are likelier to expect an image of a white person". I did not state or express any such thing. Perhaps editors may keep wanting to change the lead images, but we don't know that yet; I don't think we've ever had a decent photo of just a plain man or woman for these lead images. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You didn't state it, but the implication is clear. I don't see you selecting any images of white people. I don't see that you disagreed with Levivich here. All you stated is the following: "Also, you can't get much more US-centric than a photo of a GI." You say, "Perhaps editors may keep wanting to change the lead images, but we don't know that yet." We do know that. Anyone could bet money on it happening, and that person would be winning that bet. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I address this strawman argument at Talk:Man/sandbox#Reaching a decision. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Sighs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe that the best way to go is to have no picture. After all, it's not as though anyone reading the article doesn't already know exactly what a woman looks like already. The best we had was perhaps the composite but even that was open to criticism. Gandydancer (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gandydancer, do you personally object to pink shirt2, or another top choice, or is your concern that others will object? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"No picture" is not a possibility, see the discussion at Talk:Man/sandbox (search for "no image in the lead"). The first image is the default lead image (the one that is pushed to previews such as mouseover and search engine results). In October, an editor removed the lead image, and as a result, we were serving up an image of the female reproductive system as the lead image for the article Woman, until I posted on the talk page about it in January. That's how and why the mechanic woman ended up being the lead image. Deleting the lead image and going back to the way it was in October 2018–January 2019, with an image of the female reproductive system as the lead image, is not an option. – Levivich 16:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"No picture" is a possibility. There is no need for the "Biology and sex" section to be the first section in the article with an image. And if putting an image in the "History" section makes it default as the "lead image," it's still not actually the lead image. When a reader clicks on the article, they won't see that image up at the top trying to represent women when no single image can possibly represent women in general (unless it is indeed an image focused on women's biology). A collage/multiple image type of thing that is currently being done at the Girl article is the only way to go if we are to have an actual lead image. And, yes, if the Girl article is still allowed to go that route (it's been that way since the discussion that resulted in MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES), the Woman article can go that route. The Man article can go that route. The main reason that this route was contentious before with regard to the Woman article is because people kept objecting to the image of a famous trans women (Laverne Cox) in the composite. But it's time to try that route again. Or you can go ahead with the route you're trying, but your route will be more contentious because it's a single image. Even having two lead mages would be better. There's also the fact that people do generally have a "white is the default" bias when it comes to imagery and things in general. So, for example, if both the Man and Woman article have a picture of a black person as the lead image, there will be a lot of "Why a black person?" questions. And "Is this some political move?" questions. Doesn't mean we should then remove those images, but it does mean that there will be a lot of debate ahead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It does sound like the lead image at WP:Girl should be changed to a single image. That may have been an oversight; I don't see that MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES was discussed in its talk page. I understand your concerns, but you are arguing against a single image because of anticipated irreconcilable arguments over any image chosen, when there is an objection at this moment to using a gallery of any kind. You stated you would not object to whichever image is chosen now, so let's not argue further.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I decided to be WP:BOLD and change the WP:Girl image. [4] Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't consider it an oversight since I mentioned the Girl article more than once in the debate that resulted in MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. And as we can see, after 123username added that type of presentation in 2015, the Girl article was fine for years with it (although there have been changes to the images since then). It's been so fine (meaning without debates) that this can be argued in a future debate about MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. I think it's time for that debate to be revisited in the case of the Girl, Woman, Boy and Man articles anyway, since the discussions were mainly about ethnicity instead of gender. As for your bold edit, someone might see this edit by you as WP:POINTY since you removed it after I mentioned it having done so well. That stated, it is best that we be consistent. By this, I mean that it doesn't make sense that the Girl article should get to have that type of presentation, but not the Woman, Boy and Man articles. That is, unless one argues that the matter is more contentious for the Woman article because it's likelier that someone will want to add a picture of a trans person. If the trans woman is one who passes, one might argue that she's invisible as a trans person and so there's no point to include her in the composite. So editors who want to include a trans woman will likelier want to include a well-known trans woman so that readers recognize that a trans woman is included. And so that results in a lot of debating. As for discussing possible or likely future complications, such discussions happen all the time on Wikipedia. Editors often consider if an edit or future edit is likely to be contentious or otherwise cause an issue and what they can possibly do to lessen the chance of that being the case or completely keep that from being the case. It's why the WP:BOLD page has a WP:CAREFUL section. But, yeah, I don't see a need to argue further. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

My edit was WP:NOTPOINTy. I believe in the edit I made to the Girls image; I am not attempting to discredit the guideline. I agree with you that it is best to be consistent. Although I would prefer to not have a non-passing trans person as the single lead image here, if we did have a gallery for a lead image I would support a non-famous, non-passing trans person being included. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Flyer, if we removed the picture from the lead section and added a picture to the History section, what do you think the picture in the History section should be? – Levivich 22:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd have to think about that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, in regard to your comment above about editors wanting to "exclude" white women, I would invite you to take a look at the images considered above. Several images of white women were offered for consideration. The fact that those images didn't make the final cut doesn't necessarily mean that editors had a desire to "exclude" anyone. Also, it is unfortunate that you waited until the selection process on this page was almost complete before stating that you had a concern with the nature of that process. Finally, regarding your comments about a small group of editors making this decision, I note that anyone interested in weighing in on this issue could have (and still can) very easily become part of the discussion by visiting the talk page for the "woman" article, viewing the discussion there, and clicking the link to this page. SunCrow (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

SunCrow, it should be clear that the commentary about non-white people doesn't apply to you. I mentioned two editors specifically going for that. And they are going for that. As for waiting, I was not keeping up with this page or the man sandbox one. Neither were on my watchlist. I stand by all of what I stated above, including the RfC aspect. No need to ping me to this page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

On a side note: Once this sandbox is done being used, its current content should be preserved...for the same reason that Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response was preserved. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This page actually already has archives from previous similar discussions over the years–I'm not sure why it's split into two archive pages instead of one–but I wonder whether this page and its archives should be copied over to the archives at Talk:Woman (so future editors will fine it, whereas they may not find it in an article's sandbox archives). – Levivich 14:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that was my first time creating archives. I may not have done it correctly/the best way. If you can improve it please do. But maybe like you suggested we should just move everything into the main talk page archives when we're done. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Seeing that Talk:Woman#Should_the_current_lead_image_be_replaced_with_this_one? isn't headed towards a clear consensus, I added four more images here: "cardigan", "heart necklace", "plunge top", "dyed textured hair". Of those I think "dyed textured hair" is an improvement over pink shirt2 because it looks more natural. The other three are ok, but they look like professional portraits. Opinions for these photos at a Talk:Woman discussion may be no different than for pink shirt2, but if this heads to an RfC we should have more options. Before taking any further action here I think we should wait for the resolution of the MOS discussion referenced in the section below. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion

Kolya Butternut has posted Pink shirt2 on the talk page for the "Woman" article and has asked whether that image should replace the current lead image in the "Woman" article. SunCrow (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks to KB for starting this, and to everyone else for helping see it through. – Levivich 14:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Manual of Style discussion on lead images

There is a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, "What to do for articles since the implementation of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES?", which asks what kind of lead image should be used for this article and other articles about groups of people. This originated out of a discussion at Talk:African Americans Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)