Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 August 5: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Added commentary/response |
||
Line 102:
:Uploaded by [[User talk:Cacetudo#Image:Human Feces.jpg listed for deletion|Cacetudo]] ([{{fullurl:User talk:Cacetudo|action=edit}} notify] | [[Special:Contributions/Cacetudo|contribs]]).</span> '''UE'''. Image has no educational value as everyone already knows what human fecal matter looks like. [[User:Mace|Mace]] 22:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
::So? Everyone knows what [[men]] and [[women]] look like, too, but we have images on those pages. Besides, this is a Commons image; there's nothing we can do to delete it on Wikipedia. =) [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] 00:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
:::'''Keep'''. While I will admit to a slight bias in my opinion, because I created and uploaded this image, I do believe that this it is a perfect illustration of healthy, normal human feces and thus has encyclopedic value. A previous image similar to this was shown to be a Photoshop fake. This one is hi-res, free, and shows several aspects of the subject quite well (the mucus coating, coloring, and partially undigested food, for example; see the commons image page for more information). There has been plenty of debate on the issue of whether or not to include pictures like these in relevant articles, and the consensus was that it was acceptable as long as they were not overly large (after all, one can see the large high-res version on the image page) and were placed "below the fold." The latter ensures that a user who clicks on the "random page" link while at work etc. is not surprised with an image that they may not want to see. I do believe, however, that the (paraphrased) argument "everyone knows what feces looks like, so there's no need for a picture" is specious. This is not a paper encyclopedia and therefore there are no space constraints. In my view, any article deserves an appropriate visual illustration such as the one we are debating. Should that image be potentially offensive, I believe it should be subject to the placement guidelines I mentioned above. Have a look at the articles on [[meconium]], [[penis]], [[erection]], [[vagina]], [[vulva]], [[anus]], [[breast]], and [[nipple]], for other examples. Also, why did you (Mace) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Human_Feces.jpg&action=history re-create] this image on the English wikipedia? It was moved to the commons and deleted. --[[User:Cacetudo|Cacetudo]] 23:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''[[:Image:Google-hallowe-en.PNG]]''' <span class="plainlinks"><sup id="Image:Google-hallowe-en.PNG"> </sup> '''([[Image talk:Google-hallowe-en.PNG|talk]]''' | '''[{{fullurl:Image:Google-hallowe-en.PNG|action=delete}} delete])'''<br>
| |||