MediaWiki talk:Bad image list/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Ludicrous

I think it's somewhat ludicrous to say that the page should be kept under 10KB and still have about a paragraph explaining the page at the top. Admins should probably know what they're doing when they're editing that page and I think it could do the job just as well on the discussion page (or see discussion page for further explanation about this page). It adds more processing for the servers and needlessly. If there was something like <noinclude> for mediawiki namespace that'd be better as the server wouldn't process the text bit at the top first but AFAIK there isn't. Thanks, Yonatan (contribs/talk) 01:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Cbrown1023 talk 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Vulva_18.jpg

This looks like a trolls dream. It has already been used: here. (→Netscott) 22:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, BanyanTree 12:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Circumsised penis flaccid erect.jpg

Has recently been used to vandalize Wilford Brimley as well as someone's user page. —dgiestc 23:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, already exists on commons as Image:Circumcised penis - Flacid and Erect - High Res2.jpg which is on the list. —dgiestc 23:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Eingangautosodomy.JPG

A troll's dream... this is tagged for speedy deletion, that might be the better option here. (→Netscott) 17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Unlicensend image, now orphaned, speedy deleted. — xaosflux Talk 23:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:SOA-gonorroe-male.jpg

Is there a reason that there's no exception for the use of this image in the article Gonorrhea? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just that the person adding the preexisting exception used the Commonwealth spelling, Gonorrhoea, rather than the American spelling used in the article. Putting the image on a redirect doesn't sound very useful, so I changed the spelling so it can be used in the article. Cheers, BanyanTree 00:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Lolicon images

I know there's been some discussion on various user talk pages, but we should probably keep things centralized. The two disputed images are certainly distasteful. That being said, they have negligible shock value, and there's no evidence that they will be used for vandalism. If the community as a whole feels that the images should not be used in articles, then we will not use them. This list exists as a last resort, not a first step. Canderson7 (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's worth clarifying that there are two separate issues going on here, both involving lolicon images. What I'll call "Case A" involves Image:LoliWikipetan2.jpg and Image:LoliWikipetan.jpg, while "Case B" involves Image:Final Solution-chan.jpg. Case A was the listing of two recently uploading images that have been listed for deletion. Case B, apparently prompted by Case A, was the listing of an image that was the subject of a content dispute. I don't see any way that Case B can be seen as anything but an abuse of admin privileges, along the lines of protecting a page to a preferred version.
Case B is the topic of the recent revert war. I don't have a problem with newly uploaded images that were promptly put up for deletion being listed here as a sort of holding area while we figure out what to do with them. (I'm also on record as being pro-deletion of the two images in the current Commons discussion.) But I'm also on record in previous discussion on this page as stating that this list needs to be very conservative. As there is a dispute, I think leaving the Case A images off is proper. This is of course without any prejudice if the images are in fact used for vandalism in the future. Thoughts? - BanyanTree 03:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
They have not been used for vandalism, so they do not belong here, and if an admin is previously involved in the dispute they should absolutely not be adding these images to this listing. If the images are so heinously inappropriate, as is asserted, then there would be no problem with having them deleted, but an end-run around that by listing the images here is not appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 05:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sow with piglet.jpg

Often used for vandalism in Islam related pages. I don't see use for it except of pig. Aminullah 09:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if that picture were added to the list, vandals would still have a huge number of images to work with. Considering that we're trying to keep this list short and that an image of a pig has limited shock value even on Islam-related pages, I think we'll keep it off the list for now. I hope that makes sense. Canderson7 (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Erection by David Shankbone.jpg

I'm thinking this pic, brand-new and all that it is, is going to be ripe for userpage vandalism and trolling. Maybe I'm being unnecessarily pre-emptive here, though. Comments? - Alison ☺ 23:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My only objection to the image is that it's not very encyclopaedic. I'd question whether it's even a free image, since it looks somewhat pornographic. Perhaps the uploader could clarify what the image was uploaded for, since I believe we already have images of erections in use. Exploding Boy 00:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Well ... David Shankbone is a pretty well-known and prolific image contributor; one of our best, IMO. I've absolutely no reason to doubt that he's the uploader/author here. I believe he's intending it for the Erection page & that it's a bit contentious. I've no issues with all that, per se, nor with the image itself (geez). It's just that when I saw it first, the first thing I thought was, "holy userpage vandals, Batman!" - Alison ☺ 00:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Howdy guys. Many of the articles of body parts had low-quality images. Last April I purchased a $1,000 camera with the intent of improving the quality of images on Wikipedia. First, I have access to a lot of notable people, places and things. Second, I enjoy photography and I found Wikipedia sharpened and gave purpose to the hobby. As anyone can see from my User page and the galleries that branch from it, I pretty much have done plain jane stuff. I have a friend who is a professional model and personal trainer, and he and I had planned on doing a series of photographs of his well-defined body. One can see them in my User:DavidShankBone/BodyParts gallery. It's not just all scrotums and penises. It's teeth, necks, stubble, etc. I am not sure what needs to be said about the erection. It's large, true, but it's size and angle perfectly illustrates the concept in the article. It's part of a series, and in that way works in with many of the anatomy articles this model now illustrates well, between his good body and my good photography with a high-quality camera. There's my explanation. --David Shankbone 00:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's a fine image (I'll reserve my opinions on the content :) ). However, the discussion here is about whether it's a "bad image" or not. Bad as in problematic, not bad as in quality (or whatever else). Is is going to be misused? - Alison ☺ 00:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
What are the ramifications of something being labelled a "bad image"?--David Shankbone 00:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It means that people can't plaster the image all over the place (userpages, etc). It needs to be specified clearly exactly which articles this image is allowed in. We've had perennial problems with certain images being used to attack other editors and vandalise Wikipedia - Alison ☺ 00:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I think that's highly reasonable, and I encourage it. I don't see a need for that image to be on another page (except maybe the penis page? Hadn't really thought about it). But restrictions on it are fine with me. --David Shankbone 00:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It's also a good counter to the "oh, it'll be used in vandalism", deletion rationale - Alison ☺ 00:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd still like it in my gallery, though, as the photographer. --David Shankbone 00:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course! Not a problem :) - Alison ☺ 01:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

After being triple edit conflicted here, I finally just went ahead and added the images with exceptions, including the userpage gallery. If more exceptions are desired, drop a line here or ask any admin. - BanyanTree 01:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong: I'm against the "bad image list" in general. Exploding Boy 05:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Anus of a model by David Shankbone.jpg

This photo should only be used on Anus and User:DavidShankBone/BodyParts. --David Shankbone 21:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Added. Thanks, BanyanTree 01:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)