Talk:World Naked Gardening Day

Better image needed

I am hardly a prude but I think a more seemly image in needed, i.e. frontal with more garden scenery rather than a photo showing a little bit too much of the sexy time end of a women. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been removed which is a good alternative. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs)

I don't have contact with the photographer, but as can be seen from the information page, the photo was taken on WNGD. So I've added it back. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 04:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a tenuous rationale. The article does not actually need an image and the current image does nothing to help the reputation of WP or the value of the article itself. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully, one day, the Wikipedia powers-that-be-editors will have children and get an idea of what is appropriate and what is not. I know this will be reversed shortly, but I'm removing the image as an act of protest. 76.126.137.85 (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I have children, that's why I edit here. You should see the smut over at commons. Gardening is the least of your problems. Bigesian (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia is not censored but in this case the image is gratuitous porn. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You go to a page called World Nude Gardening Day and expect it to involve no Nude Gardening? Is it that the woman pictured is attractive? Must we enforce a 'no sex appeal' clause on Wikipedian pictures relating to nudity or sexuality to make sure no one has impure thoughts? That seems to me to be unfair and absurd. As for The Children, Children aren't permanently (or temporarily) harmed by nudity anyhow, so I'm not sure why it's unacceptable to have the Nude Gardening picture involve Gardening while Nude. If they are, there's a lot of removing to be done elsewhere first- the pages on nudism, skinny dipping, exhibitionism, any sexual position, the album virgin killer, hentai, anything on piercings of genitalia, erotic art in pompeii or anywhere else, et cetera all have pictures too yet the level of child-damage on wikipedia has generally stayed within acceptably low margins. 24.251.154.233 (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

From my point of view there is no need for an image that is tending towards pornographic rather than nude gardening. The image in question was the former. It is gratuitous porn as I have stated. WP is a source of information not a source of TITilation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If you see nude gardening by someone attractive to be more pornographic than nude gardening by someone that isn't, that seems to me to be a distinction not necessarily made by nudists. WP is a source of information, and in the case of articles dealing with sexual or nudity-based subjects it usually contains pictures of sexuality or nudity. In many cases this is something that very few people would appreciate- articles on self-immolation often contain pictures of self-immolation, and articles on large spiders contain images of large spiders (and even the small ones always have closeups).

Nonetheless, if it is so objectionable (for what reason? Why is the presence of an attractive naked person objectionable while someone non-attractive gardening, perhaps everything but their face hidden behind a large plant, would be not so objectionable?), why not bury the image further down the page, like in the Futanari page? I will note that explicit, actual pornography is displayed in the Hentai page, Futanari page, Pearl Necklace page, etc as they are relevant to the topic even though less explicit (but less accurate) substitutes could be found. If this picture is to be removed (which seems to me to be discriminatory, as unaesthetic nude gardening would not be so subject to criticism), a substitute picture which will not... whatever it is this picture does wrong... should be substituted.

Or one could give it a button that makes it reveal when clicked, so that peoples' eyes are not immediately seared away by raw... well, Nude Gardening that one really should expect. Does Wikipedia have one of those? It generally should, it seems useful. 24.251.154.233 (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

24.251.154.233, I applaud your effort. However (now addressing the larger audience), the currently removed image highlights this woman's vagina, forcing the viewer to focus at that point to get a glimpse of her obscured act of gardening. An image which has genitalia as the focal point is pornographic. So you understand that my motive is not borne out of some prude sensibility: I have no problems with vaginas nor gardening, nor problem with vaginas exposed while gardening. I'm not particularly bothered by most non-violent forms of pornography. But this image for this article is inappropriate. This article says nothing about pornography. It is about horticulture and nudity. Find an image that mimics the article's effort to combine them and drop the puerile effort to irritate Wikipedia users. 76.126.137.85 (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Naturally. I am not particularly attached to the image, though I question the reasoning behind removal. It is true that the image, nonetheless, focuses a lot on nude and not a lot on gardening (except inasmuch as one bends over while gardening). I have found, via 30 seconds on google images, several viable replacement images- group shots, with focus on the group nudity rather than the plants (it turns out horticulture itself is boring to look at, really, apparently). However, I do not know how to obtain rights for said images. Linking however is not illegal- http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lj1y29MuR31qbgrbno1_500.jpg or http://www.naked-club.org/nudist-photos-naked-club/naked-club-org-05.jpg fit the bill and would be acceptable compromise images, if the 'click to reveal' option is not available for the prior image or if it is judged to be conclusively 'value-less', 'obscene' pornography- although such a Herculean task is beyond even the Supreme Court of the United States, so I am not sure how it can be done here in an informal setting. I have also not reverted the deletion of the image as it is not vital to the article (any of the above images or ones like them would suffice), even if the resoning behind its removal carries potentially problematic undertones. 24.251.154.233 (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Note I have emailed WNGD official site for giving permission to use a photo in Wikipedia. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 06:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Until then, should the original image be restored? It is better to have an unideal image than no image at all, no? Or does the mere accusation of pornography automatically strip explanatory merit from a picture? The woman in the picture is indeed gardening, and it was taken on the very day of WNGD, presumably for the purpose of illustrating the D of N and G across this W. I also question the exact proportion of Nudity and Garden to be present, and exactly what part of the Nude Body must be present. If there is too much focus on the Greenery, would anyone have really objected that there wasn't enough Nudity? It seems to me the objection based on Pornography is unequal, as a slight amount of nudity among a lot of plants would not have gotten nearly the same outcry as nudity with some plants did. 24.251.154.233 (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If I may interject at this point; I searched commons and found only three images that were related to Naked Gardening. Supernova explosion removed two of them presuming them an April Fool's joke (page with all three images), and I was unaware that this image was captured on WNGD, but it certainly lends credence to the EV of the image. Admittedly you do get an eyeful, but 1) the model is gardening on WNGD, 2) there aren't a lot of useful alternative images, 3) it's very relevant to this article. I can understand the desire for a less explicit image, and I encourage editors to acquire one, but until that time why not continue with an image that while not perfect does add EV? Bigesian (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the consensus is for inclusion of the photo until a better photo is found. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 07:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

SupernovaExplosion, did you inform them of all the issues that must be navigated with submitting an image, including acceptable licensing and addressing personality rights? Personality rights would be the biggest stumbling block with Alan_Liefting's desire for a frontal image. Bigesian (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I informed them the photo should be CC or public domain, lets wait for the reply. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 07:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Not all CC licenses are acceptable (we need either CC-0 [like PD]), CC-BY [attribution only]), or CC-BY-SA [attribution and release under similar license needed]). For the anti-image IP above: not all images of genitalia are pornography. Pornography is meant to be sexually arousing; try to look at our images of illness of the penis or vagina, definitely not porn. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the image; I suggest not restoring it (as controversial) unless it is decided by consensus to be the permanent lead image. There is no need to have a sub-standard image in the mean time if a better one can be found (which I think is the case). The photo is a posed shot - apparently promotional(?) - which focuses on the nudity with only a token gesture to gardening. It is gratuitous, in that form, and not a good illustration of the subject. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

So to be clear, you participated in an edit-war and are now admonishing others that your edit-warring edit should be the last word. Nathan ^T 14:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh boo; I hadn't had my coffee, so wasn't awake enough to be a policy wonk. But that aside; do you have something constructive to add to the conversation r.e. the image itself? --Errant ^(chat!) 14:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Come on, you guys, run out in the back yard or campus garden nude with a shovel and get that photo up on commons! CarolMooreDC 14:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Becaused I uploaded File:Garden girl.jpg to Commons, I was asked to comment, specifically if I think that the image was taken during the World Naked Gardening Day celebration. Until today, I did not know such an event existed. I see that the image was taken on May 14, but if that was done on purpose because that's the WNGD date, the original Flickr uploader didn't note it in the image description. AFAIK, he is a (semi-) professional photographer from Portland, Oregon who occasionally uploads some of his images to Flickr, including nudes. Most of his nudes are shot outdoors, quite a lot of them in gardens. There are two more taken on the same day in the same location with the same model, File:Table blossoms.jpg and File:Wine glass girl.jpg, but not showing any actual gardening. My guess is that the date is a coincidence. Regards --Vydra (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Your participation cleared all the confusion and led to the conclusion that the photo is not relevant to this celebration. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 06:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Conflicting dates - May 3, May 5, or May 14?

Very confusing as people started to put all dates in the month of May with naked gardening celebration.--Rochelimit (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate photos

This photo linked below was removed by User:TBM10. Edit comment was "not appropriate".

• File:World Naked Gardening Day.jpg

I don't see anything inappropriate about it. Please explain before removing it again. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to read: [1] --TBM10 (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You linked to Wikipedia:Image use policy#Watermarks, credits, titles, and distortions

It is a graphic. It is not an image with a watermark or image credit within the image itself. The graphic is on top of a Youtube gardening video celebrating World Naked Gardening Day.. It is an explanatory graphic. Therefore the titles are a necessary part of the image. The video is under CC-BY.

The page section you linked to has this link for further info:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Credits. That also does not apply since there is no author credit in the image itself.

I clarified the image caption in the article, so that other editors understand that it is a graphic. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Over half of article removed by User:SunCrow on April 13, 2019

User:SunCrow removed over half of the article on April 13, 2019. See diff.

I took a ruler and measured the length of the article before and after User:SunCrow worked on it.

Also, it went from 22 references to 13 references.

I may not have time to look at this further. So others may want to look at this. -- Timeshifter (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I stand by my edits. The material that was removed was either completely unsourced, sourced to an unreliable source, insignificant, promotional, or irrelevant. The article was in such bad shape that I considered nominating it for deletion. Instead, I fixed it. SunCrow (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your edits at all. Only the quantity of material removed. See: WP:NOTPAPER. And WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

If anything you removed was referenced, it is not really a good idea to remove it just becauses you thought it was insignificant or promotional or irrelevant. Those are weasel words sometimes used by editors with agendas in many cases. I am not saying this is necessarily you. You have basically created a stub article almost. From what was once a longer, more referenced article.

Others with more time will need to look at this. If others believe this is true, then I may take a look at it later, and do some serious analysis. Any agenda editing will not stand. -- Timeshifter (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Feel free. The article is vastly improved from the hot mess that it was before I worked on it. SunCrow (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• World Naked Gardening Day 2017.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)