Talk:Glamour photography

Gallery section
I think there needs to be some more in-depth discussion surrounding the gallery and its purpose. The purpose of a gallery in a Wiki article is to demonstrate the article topic. In this case the topic is "glamor photography", and the focus should be on the actual context. This is why the image of Michelle Marsh and Lucy Pinder is inappropriate for the article as it shows glamor models not glamor modeling.

The ratio between male/female shouldn't be an issue -- nobody has mentioned that the lead image is of not one but two male models -- I don't see anybody demanding that a couple of female models are added to the lead section for balance.

Finally, let's pretend that the bombardment of images done this morning just didn't happen. This isn't a low-brow Maxim substitute. Curved Space (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the gallery section be removed, since it is little more than a magnet for promotionalism and porn. Let the prose speak for itself, along with a handful of carefully selected images in the body of the article. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, but the question still remains essentially the same -- which images are appropriate for the article and how many?
 * My suggestions for inclusion would be the first four images:
 * image:Coca Sarli.jpg -- shows a more classic glamor photo
 * image:Deal No Deal 2008.jpg -- shows a group model shot
 * image:Camila Tavares making a handbra.jpg -- female handbra to avoid indecency
 * image:Sneakers - 3 - Picture by Giovanni Dall'Orto, June 30 2009.jpg -- male handbra as above
 * The two handbra images should probably be grouped together.
 * I'd also like to reiterate a comment I made over at RfPP regarding WP:CENSOR - "The issue is not the content (although some of it is clearly not in the Glamor photography category anyway) but the shotgun/bombardment approach used on an obviously already contentious series of edits" Curved Space (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For me, it's all about equal representation of sexes. I remember back in 2014 when the article only showed women. I don't think it ever had men from 2002 to 2014, and it should have roughly equal representation. While we're at it, trans and nonbinary people should also be depicted, but I'm not sure if we could find free photos for that. The lead image is irrelevant, it was only added this June after lots of changes, so it is not really an established primary image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.72.36.132 (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the suggestion made by Curved Space that we reduce the number of gallery images down from eight to four. The idea put forward by Cullen328 that we incorporate images into the text instead of having a gallery section is also good. Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article is large enough to easily fit four additional images, but I think that the four are worthy of inclusion -- hence a gallery is the best option. As I mentioned above in response to Cullen's argument I believe that any "magnetism" can be countered by page monitoring, and with the exception of the two latest vandalism attempts, the gallery has been stable for many a year.  I'm going to be bold and make the change.  Curved Space (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted the change by an editor inserting the two male models. The intent of an article is to show the best examples of an article subject, not to ensure that there is an even spread of genders, orientation, race etc.  The gallery as it stands includes male, female and group.  In fact, I've removed one of the female images because it was duplication of the handbra.  Curved Space (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

LGBT image in gallery
The point of an image in Wikipedia is to best illustrate the article subject - in this case glamour photography. It is not to address any perceived imbalance in either image or article - unless the article or section is specfically discussing that issue.

In what way does the Capra & Corrigan image improve the article over and beyond anything contributed by the lead image of the Carlson twins - or indeed any other image in the article? Curved Space (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no arguing with you if you think the lgbt stream of glamour photography/porn industry should not be mentioned, daresay even have one single photograph in the article. Check yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.72.36.132 (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said that. All I say is that you have not provided any reasoning as to what the image adds to the article above and beyond what is already present.  It is a great bad faith leap to assume that removal of an image -- one of similar content to that in the lead -- and a request for justification is in some way an automatic case of homophobia.  You are correct that there is no point in further discussion, if all you do is misinterpret my comments -- be it intentionally done or not.
 * I checked myself. Everything's good, thank you for your concern.  Curved Space (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with the original image that requires change? As noted the point of an image in an article is to best represent the topic, not to address all permutations of a genre -- nor is it a platform for you to push your zealotry via a WP:SOAP or WP:GREATWRONG.  In all this tomfoolery you have not actually rationalised as to why an image of gay glamor improves the article.  Your only reasoning so far is "to address the balance" -- this is not a valid reason.  Curved Space (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting merger with Erotic photography
It's currently entirely unclear how this article differs in scope from Erotic photography. I'll quote the first two sentences of this article:

And here are the first two sentences from Erotic photography:



In the merge discussion in 2017, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) opposed by saying Erotic photography is the continuum that runs from glamour to hard-core pornographic.. There may be some people who conceptualize the phrase that way, but it's clear that the scope of the Erotic photography article explicitly does not include pornographic photos.

WP:NAD is very relevant here: In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by.

I could see an argument for this existing as a separate sub-topic of Erotic photography with a scope like "Erotic photography from the mid-20th century on". But the only circumstances I could see for that being a valid split would be:
 * If merging this with Erotic photography would result in an overly long article (see WP:SIZESPLIT)
 * If erotic photography from this period is so conceptually coherent and conceptually different from other erotic photography that it's best treated as a separate subject.

But I don't currently see any evidence that either of these apply. Colin M (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)