[WikiEN-l] Oh no, not again...

[Kevin Rector]

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 at Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-
> bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Tony Sidaway
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 3:41 PM
> To: wikien-l at 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 at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l