Talk:Breast/sandbox

message: From Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines
*Use only the image that best illustrates the point
While there may be several images available on a given topic, multiple images of the same thing don't usually add to the quality of the article. (See, for instance, version of the tribadism article.) Exceptions to this would be something like Breast - Size, Shape and Composition. If someone introduces a new image that already is represented, we should move it to the talk page, and discuss which, or how many images are appropriate, and go with consensus.
*Additional images should add additional information
Some articles have an abundance of images, more than really is needed to make the point. Public nudity might be one of these, where Naturism seems about right. Anytime a new image is proposed to be added, or is added without discussion, we can put it on the talk page, and begin a discussion about adding it. The main focus should be whether the new proposed image adds quality to the article, and is a better choice than alternatives to illustrate the given point.
*Existing images shouldn't be replaced without a consensus
Of course random people are going to throw images in articles all of the time. But if we have a guideline that we can apply, we can forestall people throwing their own vanity image, or favorite image over the one we have established for the lead image for an article. When they do that, we can move their image to the talk page, give a quote of our guideline, and a link to it, and begin a discussion as to whether this image is a better image than the one previously decided on.
And also:
*Photographs or video of sexual acts should be hidden behind links
*When possible, avoid images that are likely to offend
*Artwork is preferred over photographs
*Avoid photographs that make the people easily identifiable
*All photographs and videos should be labeled honestly
*No images created by, or including, Wikipedia editors
:: I think it is worth noting for the record that this guideline is not Wikipedia policy, and in fact certain parts of it are controversial as written. Although this is not the place for discussing the content of the guidelines specifically (that would be on its own page), I think it's improper to have it here without noting that it is a proposed guideline only, and not gospel. -Kadin2048 20:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines 

message: The lede paragraph of the article, and the lede image draw the attention of the reader, It should be visusally interesting, and if possible represent the topic as well as can be done.
The current image being used for lede:
I would like to use this image for lede, replacing the existing image which might be useful elsewhere in the article.
Image:Manet, Edouard - Blonde Woman with Bare Breasts.jpg
:disagree, the current lead image is fine.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Honeymane.  Full disclosure:  IIRC I am the editor who added the current lead image, so I am obviously in favor of its inclusion.  Kasreyn 02:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the two choices (Closeup of female breast.jpg or the Manet painting), I prefer the Closeup, so I concur with Kasreyn and Honeymane. However, I'm not particularly satisfied with it overall. A photo is certainly better than a painting (I think it's absolutely ridiculous that an article on "Breasts" wouldn't have a clear, informative photograph of breasts, at the top of the article), but that photo isn't the greatest. I understand, though, that it was arrived at as a sort of compromise between people who felt that a more clinical image was objectifying women and the female body as medical objects, and other people who thought a more aesthetically pleasing / erotic photo was objectifying women as sex objects. Obviously, there is a razor's edge there, that we have to run. The breasts are both an anatomical feature, a method for feeding offspring, and a sex organ / erogenous zone; the "Lead Photo" has to try to encompass all of those roles in one image. It's difficult, to say the least, and I think the current image is the closest to it I've seen. -Kadin2048 21:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the lead image is good in many ways, I am a bit bothered that it is an altered breast (with a clear surgery scar).  If a picture of similar quality both in aesthetics and photography could be found, but of an unaltered breast, I think that would be better. Guardian 04:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The person who took the picture clearly stated that they were unaltered.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes well they are clearly wrong. Look at the image full size, there is a HUGE scar running up around the closer breast. Guardian 03:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are clearly wrong. According to the user who took the picture, that's a bra line; the discussion is logged on the breast's talk page, go find it for yourself.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 04:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, not a chance.  That is a scar. It looks like a scar.  It does not look like a bra line.  It is not in a remotely reasonable place to be a bra line.  It is not remotely a reasonable size for a bra line.  The more I look the more sure I am, it is a scar.  Guardian 06:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the simple answer is that your full of yourself. Why don't you show me concrete proof that it is in fact a scar, and not a bra line. This topic has been done to death by better people then you and I, and they've agreed that it is not a scar, or at least assumed good faith that the photographer is telling the truth.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really appreciate how you are raising the level of discourse by insulting me.  I am not full of myself for having an opinion that I am confident of.  I am allowed to do both of those things without being open to ridicule.  I haven't been able to find this discussion you mention, perhaps you can point its location out to me. Guardian 04:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are if you continually claim to be right in face of all evidence, and then have the gall to claim that the person who took the picture had no idea if the breast was fake or not. The discussion in question is located at Talk:Breast/Archive_2#Superior_image--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 16:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still not sure at what point I was presented with "all evidence", but I read that other discussion.  I have to agree with the final message there that she must have been wearing the worst-fit bra of all time.  And yes, despite "all the evidence" of some random person claiming to have taken the picture, I still look at that and think that it is too sharply defined with too small of a width to be caused by a bra.  I can honestly say that no amount of random claims by people on the internet will convince me of what my eyes and brain just don't see.  It still doesn't look like a bra mark to me.  Whatever. Guardian 07:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I finally noticed the link to the Flickr page and I will admit they are real looking in the other pictures.  That is the most screwed up bra mark....ever.  Bah! Guardian 07:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Actual female weighing in here ;) There are many methods of making a 3D bra cup out of 2D fabric - one of which involves a seam up the side of breast, similar to the seam shown here: http://www.spiritofnature.co.uk/acatalog/n3026_3027.jpg I wouldn't be surprised if it was an indent from a poorly-fitting underwire bra (breast enlargement during pregnancy could have caused the poor fit) either. Furthermore, if you look closely, under the nipple, you can see a denim-like indented pattern from the knit of the bra fabric. Also, placing an incision in that area for breast implants is completely unheard of, and such a large and obvious scar would be ludicrous. This looks nothing like a scar, and more like what I see more often than not when I take off my bra after wearing it for a few hours :) Kludger (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consult a Suregon. How often does a suergon place implants through a scar. Scars are usually on the aeroleas or the undercreavece  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.109.163 (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Swapped them back.  Whether or not a photo is "alluring" is subjective.  :Image:Breast 6 months pregnant.jpg is a small, low-resolution image.  :Image:Closeup of female breast.jpg is a large, high-resolution image.  A better image deserves a higher placement.  Joie de Vivre° 17:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And whether an image is "better" is subjective as well -- I gave three reasons why I thought :Image:Closeup of female breast.jpg was somewhat come-hither.  I am not convinced it is better, ie adds more to the Wikipedia project, in the conteext of this article. BrainyBabe 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not subjective.  One image is well-lit, in clear focus, and is a large,  high-resolution image.  The other is tiny, dim, and comparatively blurry.  Joie de Vivre° 17:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even at this level of factual discussion I must disagree.  I'm currently using Internet Explorer, and in that browser the former photo does not appear well-lit -- the far breast is out of focus, and the near one has deep shadow on its underside.  The latter photo is clear and evenly lit, and does not appear blurry to me. BrainyBabe 17:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend you get the Firefox browser, it's fantastic.  You can't see the far breast in the other photo either.  The smaller photo is not as clear as the large one, if you click through to the image itself, one image is of very high resolution and the other is not. Joie de Vivre° 18:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Joie de Vivre that :Image:Closeup of female breast.jpgis a higher-quality photo. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead Image

message: Although I like both of these images, does having both of them add value, or is one of them sufficient?  Atom 14:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1 Anatomy 

message: I like the image to the left, breastfeeding, very much.  I think it should remain.  The image on the right would be great if it were a frontal view so that we could see the breasts and see them in comparison, etc.  This view doesn't really show very much related to the article, or the section.  It does seem to be a pregnant woman, I'll give it that.  Atom 15:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the image to the left above, it adds to the article. I feel that the image to the right above adds little of value to the article. --Matthew 05:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If this were a real person in the image above it might provide a better replacement for Breastfeeding.jpg to the above left, but as it is it seems to stylized to add much of value. --Matthew 05:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2.1 Breastfeeding and pregnancy 

message: Why was this removed from the article? Ixrs 22:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3 Size and shape 

message: I think the key issue in this section is that we could collect literally hundreds of images that show differences in shape and support.  The key element is the text of the section, and having one good image that represents the section on shape and support well.  One image that fits well is essential.  Then, after that, how many other images are needed to represent the section?  Is one sufficient?  Two?  More?  We don't desire to have just a collection of images.  So the key question is, how many images are needed to support the text of the article?
In the specific case, I like both images.  If one of these, or the selection in the gallery above were choices as one image to represent the section on "Shape and Support" I would choose the second (Weibliche-brust).  But, that's just my opinion.  Atom 14:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3.1 Shape and support 

message: Image:1200cc Breast Implants.jpg
Image:Breast implants.png
These are possibilities for this section, although a better image would be nice.
:The "1200cc Breast Implants.jpg" to the left is nice in that it shows actual implants, sadly, it doesn't show much, it would be better in the picture had been taken front on nude and had the person's face cropped out for privacy. I'm actually a big fan of "Breast implants.png" as it clearly differentiates submuscular versus subglanular implants. --Matthew 05:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The righthand image is nice, but could do with labels explaining the anatomical significance of submuscular and subglandular implants (or possibly a caption).  The righthand photo is about the best balance of informativeness and tastefulness we are likely to see (tastefulness being difficult to obtain in these images).  However, I predict there would be significant resistance to the use of 1200cc Breast Implants.jpg; from what I've seen, whenever an image of large or augmented breasts is added to the wiki, accusations of prurient interest quickly follow.  The question is how much of this is worth braving in order to have a photo of augmented breasts.  Kasreyn 02:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree on both counts.  But, my perception was that the value (despite the unusual angle of the shot) was that it showed no nipples, and so might be more acceptable to the prudish viewer.  You are probably right that someone would be upset by it, but someone is always upset about nearly every image.  Given a choice of these two, the on on the right seems more appropriate.  Atom 02:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I vote for the right-hand image, comparing the submuscular and subglandular implants, although I agree with Kasreyn that it could do with some labeling. As for the left-hand image, I agree that it would be nice to get some kind of a photo of augmented breasts, but I see a number of problems with this image. First, the angle is bad, and the clothing is distracting. It seems like the boob equivalent of an upskirt photo; there's a certain type of objectification going on here. Second, the size of the breasts in question isn't really representative of most augmented breasts, and I think would be almost inherently NPOV in terms of making augmented breasts seem unnatural and gargantuan. Optimally, we'd have both a diagram showing a cutaway of the placement of submuscular/subglandular implants, and also a well-lit, informative, nonpornographic shot of augmented breasts themselves. I suspect that a more "professional" or "encyclopedic" image of implanted breasts would probably engender less criticism from the prudes than one where it's obvious the woman is pulling up her shirt, and it looks like she's flashing the camera. -Kadin2048 21:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 4 Plastic surgery 

message: I like this image, and it fits this section very well.  Atom 14:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is fine, but the title is overly vague.  Cultural status?  It's an almost meaningless phrase when applied to a single portion of human anatomy.  Perhaps "Cultural Perceptions" might be a more apt alternative?  Kasreyn 02:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 6 Cultural status