Talk:Woman/sandbox/Archive 1

Lead image
Here are some potential images for the lead of the Woman article:

Discussion?
Quite quiet around here, isn't it. Well, I'll wade in. I vote for the darkened Frau-2 in the montage. Rationale: Colour, non-erotic, not "idealised" model-type, clearly shows normal human female form, and can always be changed later if a better image becomes available. Esseh 21:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm contributing an alternative image. Hope it will be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kym777 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems somewhat grainy, and the woman's head and legs are cut off. Personally I don't think it's a very good candidate. Ciotog 06:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My support is behind the third one from the left on the top row. Non-erotic, nude, realistic (not just a sculpture or a painting). Also, the person in the photo is no longer living, which I think is important (I wouldn't want to have my picture on a page like this). Wrad (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish the third from the left looked a little happier about being nude. She is either trying to be seductive and failing or she is sulking because she doesn't really want to be photographed. I do think it is good that she has pubic hair. I feel that if wikipedia is going to show a woman she should be as unaltered as possible to show what a woman _really_ looks like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.168.58 (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The legs should be at a natural standing position. The female genitals are sort of tucked away, so that's important. Also, the Pioneer image is unsuitable because the line depicting the vulva was censored. ✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree.Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually like the second one from the right, second row. I think its not TOO distubring..EryZ (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer a picture with natural pubic hair, or clothed.Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Why nude though?
Just wondering, why does the lead picture have to be nude, i mean, its sort of disturbing for little kids...EryZ (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In what way?Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nudity disturbing for little kids? They must be very disturbed then by being born nude ... --Rosenzweig (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say that it's disturbing necessarily - my own little kids certainly know what their Mom looks like nude. On the other hand, nudity is not the norm in our society, or indeed in most human societies.  I question why the image for this article should be nude when the women we encounter in everyday life are usually clothed.Dunncon13 (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. The homemade photo of a nude woman is not the best image to represent whole concept of "woman". There is nothing wrong in a photo about the superficial anatomy of woman, but is important to note that Woman article is not about the very same topic of Human anatomy. The concept of "Woman" is a way larger than "the woman body". For this reason in my opinion the majoriy of Wikipedia users would consider better images for this article a nice idealized image of woman like Bouguereau venus detail.jpg or a realistic image of women like 1970sgirls.jpg. -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 11:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Completely agree with User:Basilicofresco. Nudity is absolutely not required here.  I added a photo of a young english woman, walking in a street in London.--Grondilu (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What's more offensive ?
46.114.15.213 (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)