Talk:Balloon/Archives/2016

Emily Ratajkowski image
I've removed it. It's an article about balloons. A small image of a topless model coincidentally holding some ballo0ns is not an appropriate image. The emphasis in the caption about it being a handbra makes it fairly clear that this was added because it was an image of a topless model, not because it helps explain what a balloon is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , You are free to edit the WP:CAPTION as you see fit. The images used at Balloon, Toy balloon and List of balloon uses depicts a person carrying holding a foil balloon. Since it was placed adjacent to content about foil balloons, it is obviously an image depicting the content, which is the purpose of imagery. The caption included the word handbra to explain the image further. I did not choose the image because she was topless. Why would you even think that?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a rhetorical question, right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , No I honestly think you are not thinking clearly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The animal balloons are foil ballons, so the concept is already sufficiently illustrated. Adding a picture of a topless model holding balloons does not add to the understanding of what a foil balloon is. If you feel the article needs a better illustration of foil balloons, see Commons:Category:Foil toy balloons. There is literally no reason to add this photo except your interest in all things Emily Ratajkowski. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the fact that a notable person is holding foil balloons may make it the most interesting depiction of them. Often, depictions of notable persons are preferred over random images.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that WP encourages promoting incoming links to articles that don't have a lot of such links. Many of Ratajkowski's incoming links are from transclusions. Links such as these make the article more interlinked to the rest of the project.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Spreading a swathe of images of this particular person around a whole raft of articles is clearly a form of spamming, presumably to promote either the model or her Wikipedia page or both. In any of these case, it is unacceptable behaviour on Wikipedia.  Velella  Velella Talk 13:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your actions with these edits seem to be a misguided attempt to use policy geared toward WP:COI editors. As I am quite sure you are aware, it is not link spamming to add images/videos that depict the prose content in ways that are superior to the preexisting image content. In most articles, the images/videos that I added depicted the content in superior ways to the preexisting content. Your own personal beliefs on spamming do not apply to a well intended editor who has come across great media content and is attempting to improve individual articles while improving the interconnectedness of WP, which is a desirable feature.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The goal is not to interlink completely unrelated articles for the sake of linking; the goal is not to add as many links to this photo shoot as humanly possible in the name of "interconnectedness". I'm going to chicken out and not get involved in the broader question of you adding these images to so many articles that are vaguely related (photo shoot, for example, or handbra). Sorry, Velella. I think it's a legitimate concern, and if this more general discussion is raised elsewhere I may comment if someone pings me, but it isn't my focus and my time is limited.  But I am going to insist that adding a topless model holding a bunch of balloons to California Balloon Law, toy balloon, and the other balloon articles (and similarly at confetti too) is clearly, 100% inappropriate spamming.  It is your adding of these images to these clearly inappropriate articles that leads me to doubt your stated reasons for adding them to somewhat more applicable articles. Not necessarily blue-linked upper case WP:SPAMing, but certainly unlinked lowercase spamming. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh come on now, it's not spamming. Placing the image in all of these articles may be a bit much, but there is no evidence whatsoever that TonyTheTiger was engaged in any kind of promotion or advertising.  Indeed, while we shouldn't place the same image in too many articles, I think it is fine and appropriate where it occurs in this article. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw content that supplemented the articles and added it. It seems better to me to show the subject in a notable use or in use by a notable person than in the abstract. That is why the Ratajkowski image was added to the four balloon related articles. It should be retained in at least some of them. We don't show any notable uses of toy balloons or uses of them by notable people. These two images give us that chance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. When I say no notable uses of toy balloons, keep in mind the first image at WP:IRELEV. The parade is not really depicted in the image. These images show both a notable person and toy balloons.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of wasting time going into unnecessary detail, let me expand on my points:
 * There is no benefit to using images of "notable" people in the same picture as the subject of the article, clothed or not. I'd oppose this as "silly and lame", instead of "inappropriate", if this was a fully clothed Barack Obama holding a balloon.  Your proposed images add nothing to anyone's understanding of the concept of "balloon".
 * There is no benefit to the balloon articles to include cross-links to articles about a model. I can see that you, personally, get a benefit out of additional links to your favorite article placed in random other articles, but that is not a reason to do it.
 * The principle of least surprise says that while you don't censor an image like this in an article about "handbras", no one expects to see half naked models in an article about balloons; indeed, almost everyone expects not to see one. There are tons of images of nude blond women on Commons; we might expect to see them added to the article nude, but not the article blond or woman  (I should have checked that, I guess, but the point is the nude pictures there are educational/illustrative, not eye candy).
 * While I get the impression you disagree, using this image as article decoration is insulting to women. it might be OK in Adolescent.teenage.boy.pedia, but it isn't here. *reality check: it seems self-evident to me that we don't do this; I'm disappointed it isn't to you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am going to be nominating Emily Ratajkowski at FAC within the next week in hopes of getting it promoted to FA in time for a 25th birthday WP:TFA. During discussions at Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3, discovered the source file that availed many high quality video resources for of a supermodel for WP. Look at uses of the files at places like Lip liner, hair rollers, pop out cake and hair spray. Where do you think we can find a supermodel in creative commons licensed content. I have been trying to incorporate her content in relevant articles.  I apologize at my aggressive use of the source video in balloon-related content. It has been quite useful in many articles over the last few days. If you know any good copyeditors, Ms. Ratajkowski's article might benefit from one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That article, 100k long, about a 24-yr old model who appeared in a video and a few movies, an article containing her entire resume, can do with some serious trimming. She can give Putin (at around 180k) a run for his money. If proves our adage, though, that if it's verified (even if cited to EW, NYP, etc.) it must be included--and I'm glad to see Piers Morgan cited in that article, opinionating on whether someone is a real feminist or not; please add him to Category:Women's studies academics. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for your comments. I honestly think the article is a bit too detailed on some issues, but discussants at Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3 felt it was promotionally one-sided without the details about various controversies. They still think further details are necessary, but that certain content should be eliminated based on whether higher quality sources can be found. I would love specific feedback on ways to trim the article. However, a veteran like you is probably aware how articles are measured. Ratajkowski's article is a pretty average length for a WP:GA according to User:The ed17/Good articles by prose size at 25997 characters and according to User:The ed17/Good articles by wiki text at 100,310 kb. That being said, if I could have your attention for some advice, that would be great.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Needs a history section
This has virtually no historical information in it, including the origin of the idea (air-filled livestock bladders used as flotion devices and balls for sport, inspired by earlier use of stuffed leather balls known as ballons.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)