Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sunbathe Buttocks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sunbathe Buttocks

[[ Image: Sunbathe_Buttocks.jpg |thumb| Buttocks of a woman being tanned during August, 2004 in Romania ]]

This fantastic piece appears in the buttocks article. It was taken by a fellow named Clona. I thought I'd nominate it because it brilliantly illustrates the concept of buttocks and is also quite eye-catching.

  • Nominate and support. - Heathead 16:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think it is inappropiate to be displayed as a featured picture. --Thorpe | talk 21:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thorpe and J.Steinbock, just to clarify, what do you mean by inappropriate? The fact that there is a semi-nude female, or that it does not meet featured picture criteria? Nudity in and of itself is not a valid reason to oppose. ~MDD4696 05:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's easy to take nice looking snapshots with modern cameras... the only reason this image is eye-catching is because it's of a butt. There's little technical, artistic or encyclopedic merit. The image is not level, and the subject is not prominent (it doesn't look like the photographer was trying to frame anything in particular). This image doesn't really depict anything useful--everyone knows what a butt looks like. ~MDD4696 22:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Whoa there! Wait just a minute. Hypothetically speaking, if someone didn't have access to a mirrored surface, how would they know? You can't just suppose that everyone out there is either acrobatic enough to get a reasonable glimpse of their own butt or has a companion willing to showcase theirs. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per MDD. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 00:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • well... whatever. —This unsigned comment was added by Heathead (talk • contribs) 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Oppose. per MDD.--Dakota ~ ° 04:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nice butt, but butt is not FP quality. Just a snapshot. --Janke | Talk 06:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose nope.chowells 21:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per Mdd4696. Alvinrune TALK 22:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. This photograph is innappropriate. J.Steinbock (Talk)
  • Oppose as per above. I think that the subject matter could be photographed better (too much angle on it). It makes the image not very encyclopedic. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are better pictures of butts out there than this one. --Midnighttonight 04:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support There is noing wrong with this picture. She is not nude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamerzworld (talk • contribs)
    • Granted, she is not nude, but you have to keep in mind that there are many children out there (me technically included) that use Wikipedia as a valuable source for research. Imagine what parents would think if this image appeared on the main page. It does nothing but worsen Wikipedia's image. — Webdinger BLAH | SZ 02:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, no. Read WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-23 17:52
        • I think you may need to re-read WP:NOT - it is not a policy that forbids us from excluding deliberately titilating images. It is more of a legal disclaimer that we do not guarantee to do so. Johntex\talk 01:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As a woman, I know that I would be horrified to discover a photo of my butt on the front page of an open source website. Since this is not Girls Gone Wild, it would be best and most respectful to obtain the consent of these women regardless. Plus, the photo is poor composition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.51.67 (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose for all the reasons stated above and any others to follow. TomStar81 22:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Copyright is touchy. Photographer doesn't appear to have asked permission. Little encycloepdic merit, bad composition. I've seen better photographs of butts. - Mgm|(talk) 11:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Ugh. Agree with J.Steinbock, Janke and 65.182.51.67. — Webdinger BLAH | SZ 02:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose This picture is not "inappropriate" because of showing nude buttocks (we live in the 21st century, not in the 19th). But it is simply not sufficiently outstanding for FP status. Roger McLassus 13:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing distinguishes this particular photo of a butt from any other photo of a butt. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 06:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Simply absurd, if this passes as a featured picture we'll be having britney spears breasts being nominated!--Andeee 22:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Are you sure that wasn't supposed to be a support vote...? Sorry, sorry... ;) ~MDD4696 04:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. Moral support - and look at that azz. --Cyde Weys 07:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Weak Support - May be offending to some but other wise... nice butt. Leidiot a03:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing artistically special. As a woman, I was slightly offended by this pic.
  • Oppose Nothing special at all. Canuck89 03:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Covington 08:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong, Firm Support of that Sexy Butt Artistically, I think it demonstrates how perfectly smooth, supple, and round a human butt can be.
  • Oppose Nice shoot, however I think if I didn't know what a buttock is, this photo would not help me. The first photo shown in the article should be more proffesional while having the same kind of Strong, Firm and Sexy Butt. Thx!

what a fine booty she thick how cna yu oppose