Old picture = complaining/controversy/unhappy people/low image quality/some value to the article
New picture = less complaining/less controversy/fewer unhappy people/higher image quality/equal value to the article as the old one
At least that's how I see it. If you disagree that's fine.
I just went and checked (it's not on my watch list); there hasn't been a comment on the talk page for Titanic for two days. That means that all the people who were expending energy there have now hopefully moved on to more productive pursuits (except for those of us who keep rehashing it on the mailing list -- which was something I promised myself I wouldn't do - oh well).
I'm not really interested in getting back into this, I only answered because you asked.
-Kevin
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l- bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Tony Sidaway Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 3:41 PM To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Links to porn sites
Kevin Rector said:
Yes, I do believe that if a non-nude can illustrate an article as
well
as a nude can then the non-nude should be used.
Why in this case, though? The whole point was that she posed nude
wearing
the Heart of the Ocean for Jack, and the treasure hunters looking for
the
diamond found the picture. That is the McGuffin that holds the whole story together. You get that contrast, the many contrasts in that
movie.
Great opulence above decks, poverty below. A naked young girl full of
the
promise of life, an ancient old woman at the end of it. Also it's a
very
pretty picture.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Kevin Rector said:
Old picture = low image quality
New picture = higher image quality
I think those are the only standards that are valid. People complaining, except on encyclopedic grounds, means absolutely nothing. The new picture is higher in quality than the old one, but the old one shows more of the scene. Both have their uses on Wikipedia.