Template talk:Porn-stub

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Icon

Does anyone have suggestions for a better icon? The current image doesn't really read well at a small size, or particularly represent porn. Image:Artful nude.jpg might be better:

 This pornography-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Thoughts? —tregoweth 00:08, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think that Image:Artful nude.jpg is perfect, actually. – ClockworkSoul 16:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about the icon  ? It's an word/phrase/image closly linked to pornography without being pornographic. Stubs do look a lot bether with an image Lokal Profil 20:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it. The Xs remind me of censorship and government content rating systems, not about art or sex, which is what pornography is mostly about. —Psychonaut 23:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, how about . I mean symbol wise, know the picture itself needs cleanup. /Lokal Profil 21:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the happy feet icon. I actually liked the first "nude torso" one. The whole "Wikipedia is not censored for minors" rule should apply here. Iamcuriousblue 20:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The current icon doesn't address male/gay porn; I'm changing it to until someone comes up with something better that covers both male and female.—Chidom talk  14:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The icon substituted by BreakFastClubb: is unreadable until expanded, only applies to film, not to print pornography, and still doesn't apply to same-sex pornography.—Chidom talk  18:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Psychonaut. I think the current icon (which is perfectly readable to me) will do fine until someone can think of a better one. And BTW, how can you even tell the sex of the two people kissing? It just shows their heads! RobbieNomi 23:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of starting a revert war, I'll leave it alone for now, but it still only covers film, not print. I see the figure on the left as a man and the one on the right as a woman; I don't doubt that was the intent. It isn't readable unless you enlarge it, you can't tell that it's two faces at all. I don't particularly care for the "XXX", either, but none of the options so far are better, and definitely not inclusive of either forms of pornography (film/print) or the sexes of the participants.
Perhaps "No icon" would be the better choice.—Chidom talk  23:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Or just use a stylized version of the common abbreviation of the term:

 This pornography-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
 This pornography-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

—Chidom talk  00:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To Chidom's points about the image of two people kissing being film-centric and heterosexual, I have to add that the image is poor quality, grainy, and doesn't really convey the idea of "pornography". Pornography certainly doesn't have to include kisses, often doesn't, and kisses such as the one depicted are usually not considered pornographic. The artful nude torso, XXX, and the stylized PORN are strongly associated with the idea, and the interlinked feet at least clearly imply it, while all being a better quality image. The artful nude torso is of course the best image as an image, but I can understand bandwidth concerns, and unnecessary nudity concerns. I'd take any of those over this one. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest nothing at all. What should there necessarily be an image? Or Hugh Hefner's mug. - crz crztalk 20:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I put up the stylized text, but can live with "nothing at all" until we find something better. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The stylized text I uploaded was changed by someone (by replacing the file I uploaded, not by linking to a different image). I have changed it back and would like to remind people that not all of us have 20-20 vision and appreciate images that are clear and easy to read. That's often a challenge at the icon level. Thanks.—Chidom talk  20:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:PornSmiley.gif

There's my 2 cents regarding which icon we should use. Note how it is sexually nonspecific (straight, gay, bi, lesbian, animal, whatever), assuming that smilies are asexual, and it represents the concept of pornography (eroticism) without focusing on its tangible elements. Also, I removed the "Stylized Porn" icon because " This pornography-related article is a stub." is redundant and it places an unnecessary strain on the servers to use a picture to convey a word. Nippy13 13:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What about something like the playboy icon?--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 05:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No icon

We don't need an icon for this stub template. What exactly is it for? I actually like icons (for example, the puzzle icon that used to be in the main stub template), but icons for PORN is not good. The silhouette of a nude figure and that girl wearing the Bomis T-shirt are all unnecessary and have no useful function or meaning at all.

I have thus removed the icon from the porn-stub template. If you oppose my actions, please discuss it before putting it back or placing in another icon. Thanks. -- Stevey7788 06:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

disagree --Haham hanuka 12:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The picture is around 0.5 MB in size. Not suitable for a stub page. --DuKot 23:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why does image size matter? The image is resized once, hashed, and kept in the cache. There is no need to worry about the size of the original. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 00:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the Sylvia Saint icon was fine. Bgfgb 17:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think it looks bad for a stub template message. No icon would be better. -- Stevey7788 22:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think an icon is necessary here either. All it will do is stir up controversy and there's nothing wrong with not having an icon. Keep it out. Cookiecaper 20:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
It is an artistic nude photograph, not even pornography. What kind of controversy will that stir up? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe this picture belongs in the stub. It does not matter whether this is a photograph or not. Nipples and the cleavage are clearly visible. Simple text should be sufficient for the stub. --DuKot 00:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I think. I don't mean to stir up some more controversy, but I have removed the icon. No icon is better than an icon, as some people like it and some don't. If some people who hate the image see the stub message, they're fine with that. If some people who like the icon see the stub message, they'll be fine with it. The image isn't necessary, and it only creates a messy template talk page. Besides, some stubs don't even have icons. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we need an icon. I love stub icons. As for what to use, I like the "Better Icon?" icon, but I can see why you might not. I'd suggest finding something like this with the silhouette in black on a white background instead of the other way around. I can't seem to find one and the results Google Image is pulling up are damaging my virginity. --Orborde 07:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, Orbode. I'll try to find some that are a little bit better-suited for stub icon use. Cookiecaper 08:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Icon good. must stay. If you have a problem with nudity, that's a whole other matter Project2501a 08:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it easier on the servers if there are no icons? --Kilo-Lima 19:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
On a technical basis, you are correct. Server performance must be considered as well, not semantics. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 14:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)