Talk:Woman/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Woman. 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Manual of Style discussion on lead images

There is a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, "What to do for articles since the implementation of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES?", which asks what kind of lead image should be used for this article and other articles about groups of people. This originated out of a discussion at Talk:African Americans Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Should the current lead image be replaced with this one?

• 
  pink shirt2

This top choice was the result of a discussion at Talk:Woman/sandbox
See also: Talk:Man#Should the current lead image be replaced with this one? Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The current lead image features a woman who is wearing a hat and goggles and is not facing the camera. The proposed new image is a much better picture as well. SunCrow (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

No - this image does not "give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page (WP:LEADIMAGE) because it doesn't show enough dimensions which would, at-a-glance, communicate the topic of the page is the broad category of "woman", and doesn't show enough differentiation from "man". For example, a number of physical features typical of women (as different from men) are not represented - such as lack of defined breast or hip shape. Other indications of typical societal role aren't apparent either - for example, as the only population which carries children, a picture of a pregnant woman would be far more valuable. The photo itself is low-quality (I find the pink and black areas don't have much definition, becoming two solid blocks of color which visually "blow out" the overall image) and badly-posed. The most important thing when considering images for this is to imagine you cannot read the text of the page, the caption, or the filename of the image. If you saw this image on a Wikipedia page from a language you can't read, would you be reasonably be sure you are on the "Woman" page? Because, for a basic concept article like this, its quite likely a lot of readers coming here are just learning English. -- Netoholic @ 12:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic, do you believe pink shirt2 is an improvement over the current lead image which depicts a woman engaging in traditionally male physical labor, and whose figure is obscured by baggy masculine clothing? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Neither the current lead nor pick shirt satisfy WP:LEADIMAGE. -- Netoholic @ 05:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

My above comment was meant to relate the current image to Netoholic's criteria which they describe here:. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes – because it's better than the current lead image, for three reasons. (1) subject is facing the camera, (2) subject is "doing nothing" rather than working (the current lead image might cause confusion as to whether it's an image of a woman or an image of a woman mechanic), and (3) it "pairs" nicely with the proposed new image at Talk:Man#Should the current lead image be replaced with this one? (same composition, similar pose, etc.). I think even under Net's criteria above (which I disagree with, for example, I can see her breasts and hips just fine), the proposed image is better than the current image. As for resolution, it's 2300x3500, and the detail quality blown up lets me see individual eyelashes and the piping on the skirt. Sufficiently high-res IMO. – Levivich 14:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I just want to say that although Netoholic argued in the #Don't remove the current image section that the current lead image "is basically a man," I can't buy that the current lead image "might cause confusion as to whether it's an image of a woman." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Beyond that, readers will know that we haven't included an image of a man as the lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

And, yes, I understand that Levivich was comparing "image of a woman" vs. "image of a woman mechanic" in the sense that the latter focuses on the job the woman is doing, but I just wanted to note that I'm sure that no one will be confused about the gender of the subject. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Either would be fine, but I like that the current image challenges gender stereotypes. It's concerning to see these women being discussed in terms of someone's figure being obscured, lack of defined breast or hip shape, or masculine clothing. She's wearing a shirt and a hard hat. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

We are trying to find a representative WP:LEADIMAGE, which means to we have to evaluate them as to whether the pictures communicate typical features. Challenging "gender stereotypes" sounds like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS reasoning and is the antithesis of the purpose of this lead image and discussion. -- Netoholic @ 05:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The image should be representative of women, not male gaze of women. The current image shows a woman at work in working clothes. There's nothing wrong with it. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I have expressed the exact same standards for lead images of both man and woman, so keep your sexist insinuations and external agenda to yourself. -- Netoholic @ 05:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic, please strike the above comment; there is no need for personal attacks. SV has valid concerns about avoiding male gazey photos. I do agree with you that we should have a photograph which gives readers a sense of the reality of what a woman looks like, which includes the shape of her body. I understand that you would like to see a representation of a gender role or activity, but I think it's better to just have a neutral image which illustrates a woman existing, doing nothing. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No way. SarahSV in one reply made an assumption about my gender and a sexist insinuation based on that assumption. I have in no way said the image we should use should be overtly lurid or sexual - only one that shows the natural and typical female form in a way which contrasts it from men and from girls, and one which would be easily understood to represent this topic without need of language knowledge. I'll not strike a single character, just as I expect SarahSV won't strike theirs. -- Netoholic @ 11:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the current image challenges gender stereotypes is exactly why that image is NOT ideal. I'm all for challenging gender stereotypes, believe me, I 100% am, but this article's image not the place for it. This image is the place to show an image of just a woman, nothing more and nothing else. Start adding in things that suggest feminism or any other philosophy, concept, idea, etc. and the image is about that concept, and not JUST about a woman. I would be saying exactly the same sort of thing if the image were showing specifically traditional conceptualizations of a woman, for example if it were an image of a "woman housewife". Either way, it would be invoking certain ideas/ideologies, and not just a woman. Vontheri (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

No; I don't think it's an improvement. Also, I agree with SV. -sche (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

-sche, do you think any of the photos at Talk:Woman/sandbox are an improvement? I recently added more. If not, what are you looking for? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes; the current photo illustrates a woman doing work, the proposed photo illustrates a woman. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Lean No: of the two, I have a slight preference for the mechanic image.

I've looked at MOS:LEADIMAGE but didn't find the guideline to be of much help in making a decision. It says lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic. I think either one would qualify. It also says a lead image should be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works. I've looked around, and found one example in a reference work that is similar to the current mechanic image (a cover from the Encyclopedia of Women in Today's World, featuring images of a female astronaut, a female scientist, etc.) I've also found one that's similar to the proposed image (a picture in the Cambridge Dictionary's entry for Woman of a woman looking into the camera and smiling.)

Ultimately, either image seems like a good fit based on the guideline, so I'm just going with personal preference. I like the mechanic image more. The proposed image is bland and looks like something from a LinkedIn profile. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Weak preference for this over the current, but Neither (and None per what I said on the sandbox page(s). It would make sense if the next RfC included none as an option, since that is clearly in the spirit of the RfC on galleries. If there's a question about whatever the first image is appearing as though it's a lead image because of some third party algorithm, that can be addressed separately. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

None is my first choice; second choice is leave it as is. Gandydancer (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment why are we choosing random woman and random man who we don't know who they are? We can't judge the sexuality of the person by his/her appearance.

In my opinion we should choose a photo of a famously known woman especially a famous feminist woman.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

An unknown man and woman simply represent a man and woman.  A photograph of Gloria Steinem represents Gloria Steinem.  I'm not sure what you're saying about their sexuality.  That is irrelevant.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Sexuality? What..? What does the person's sexuality have to do with this? Sexuality isn't the same thing as gender or gender identity... A lesbian (or bisexual or asexual or etc.) woman is a woman as much as a straight woman is a woman... Choosing an image of a famous person invokes more than just the idea or concept of a "woman". This image should be an image that represents the subject of the article, nothing more and nothing less. Vontheri (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes This image doesn't invoke any ideas or ideologies beyond simply that of a "woman"; it is simply an image of a woman. Perhaps it isn't ideal, but every image is going to have at least some issue to at least someone. This image is an improvement over the current image by a million miles, and the goal should always be continual improvement of the encyclopedia, not perfection. Vontheri (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The image should show the natural form of a woman i.e. it should show the distinguishing features. Showing a woman in traditional male garb, or even traditional female garb is dependent on culture and also historical era. I suggest a simple nude photo of a woman (and a nude man at Man) would be better at showing key distinguishing features and make it more culturally universal. All other photos in articles about living organisms do not obscure the subject with attire. I suggest File:Human female.jpg. This would be a good choice because the photo is repeated later with labels. Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that picture makes sense for Human female, but I feel that this article is about a woman as she typically exists, which is usually with clothing, although I agree that it is a good idea to show a sense of the physical distinguishing features. I think that because people do have cultural context, we should show it, but I think it is best to be as neutral and universal as possible. I think the Man lead photo does that well. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Kolya Butternut. SunCrow (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• No: I prefer the current image used. It's high quality, got a good aesthetic and I don't understand the reasoning that the subject should be doing nothing. People need to simply accept that there's no image we could possibly use that would indicate to all readers "this is the article Woman" because it's just too broad a category for that to a person's first instinct. But an image looks nicer than no image, and I think the current image looks excellent, whereas this one just looks a bit off to me—the asymmetry of her arms, the unpatterned clothing, boring backdrop etc. Perhaps this has been discussed to death, but I may support a composite image of several women, which I think would address some other concerns expressed by those above. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 23:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  Struck the last sentence as it turns out that yes, it has. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 23:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I think it would be best if we could use a gallery of around 5 or 6 six images. If we could do that, then the current "woman mechanic" image would be appropriate, along with other images of women of various cultures and roles. It's unfortunate, in my opinion, that the "no ethnic galleries" rule exists, and even more unfortunate that it has been interpreted to apply to gender in addition to just ethnicity. If we could have a small gallery, I think that would pretty much solve this dispute. Vontheri (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't like that idea because I feel like a gallery represents "culture and social role diversity of women", rather than just "woman". And because a gallery attempts to represent all kinds of women, editors would keep switching out photos in an attempt to better represent all kinds of women. A picture of a woman simply represents the topic of the article by showing an example of a woman. One picture to debate over is better than six. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

We're not restricted to just these two photos! There are lots of great images we could from. We could even get a bot to rotate the image every month if we really couldn't make up our minds. I have a preference for showing more than one woman (because no single woman is all of us :-)), and so here's a small handful that appealed to me.

• 
  Group of women, traditionally unisex occupation
• 
  Two women, skilled labor
• 
  Farm workers
• 
  Women preparing rice
• 
  Does she have to be economically productive?

If you don't see something you love in this little set, then have a look through c:Category:Featured pictures of women, c:Category:Quality images of women, and c:Category:Valued images of women. There are a lot of great pictures available. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

A rotating gallery was discussed at #Rotating_gallery. You may want to add your images to Talk:Woman/sandbox. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Having a look at the featured pictures on women gallery, and excluding all pictures of notable women (which could be construed as photos representing that person, rather than a random woman) my pick would be the one below. Neutral in expression and attire, neither traditionally overly 'feminine' or 'masculine' in any particular way and a very high quality photograph. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 06:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

•