Talk:Woman on top

Tagged as { { globalize } }

See my recent comments at Talk:Missionary position. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

As I said there: per the template's help page, Template:Tq. Without evidence of that, the tag is not needed. What evidence is there that people in these places view this topic differently? Crossroads ^-talk- 18:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Amazon position spinoff

Amazon position currently redirects here and casually mentioned once. However, the topic has been covered in numerous reliable sources, and it is an important woman on top position. I believe there is opportunity to expand on the topic in this page, and also change the redirect page into an actual spinoff page. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

This article isn't that long (a bit overloaded with pictures, but we can fix that) and I can't imagine an amazon position article would be that long either. Seems to make more sense to include it here. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Credit in caption

The edit summary in this edit, "we don't credit individual wikimedian pseudonyms in image captions. We do credit famous artists by their actual names, when relevant" sees to be contrary to MOS:CREDITS, which says that "If the artist or photographer is independently notable, then a wikilink to their biography may be appropriate". If the artist has a Wikipedia article, then they are notable. Note that it was a link to the artist's article, not their user page. Green Montanan (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

It *may* be appropriate. It may not be, and in this particular case where the artist is also the uploader of the image, it's not appropriate (and a dubiously circular form of notability, given that the author in question is *only* notable for their Wikipedia images and nothing else -- they are not *independently* notable). Since the uploader is 1) also the artist in this case, 2) credit and attribution is provided through the license on the file (unlike the Avril image, where Avril is clearly not the uploader) and, 3) the article is not about the author, it's unnecessary to additionally highlight them with credit in the caption: Template:Tq ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I guess what doesn't make sense to me is what difference does it make how the artist became notable. Why does it matter whether they distributed their artwork on Wikipedia, or via other means? Green Montanan (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Because we have a community consensus against using Wikipedia for promotion and especially self-promotion, which is implemented in several forms but one of which is the requirement that images (and by extension their captions) primarily serve an educational purpose and not as a means of self-promotion of the user's artistic skills. And regardless of whether the promotion is coming from the artist directly or from someone else, it is primarily promotional in nature to credit the artist here -- particularly when all it serves to do is to justify article inclusion for a person who is notable solely for their past Wikipedia contributions, which would have the effect of being used to further justify their subsequent inclusion of future content. Making artists famous is not our job. Building an encyclopedia is. Interested readers who want to know the source of the image can simply click through on the image file and view it directly. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thank you for the detailed response.

If the intention is to prevent usage of Wikipedia to gain notability, then that train has already left the station because Seedfeeder already has a Wikipedia article, which is worth a lot more than a mention in a photo caption.

To be honest, I'm not sure why this is a concern. That's just the reality of the digital economy. Since many people gain notability from activity on social media, I don't see why there is a concern that some people would gain notability from activity on Wikipedia.

My question is: is any of what you wrote above documented anywhere? or is it just part of the tribal culture on Wikipedia? Green Montanan (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

It's all documented, but not in a single centralized place (and likely will never be). The existence of this consensus is directly mentioned in the Image Use Policy, but the links to the discussions around that are not and are buried across the past 20+ years of this project, unfortunately. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 14:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Why can't it be added to MOS:CREDITS? At the very least, it would be very easy to add a footnote to the sentence that begins with "Template:Tq" to say that "independently" means independent from Wikipedia. Green Montanan (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Likely for the same reasons as many things don't happen -- someone has to volunteer to do the work of digging up all the relevant links to all the relevant discussions, figure out how to present them/format them in with the rest of the article, and get that edit to stick. Good luck if that's you; the few times I've tried to do that with policies and guidelines have soured me on trying again. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm up for the challenge. Green Montanan (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Image

Template:Atop Wikipedia is open to the general public, which includes all ages. Wouldn't it make more sense to remove a picture and this inappropriate article by extension? One: this picture is too unacceptable. Two: did it have to be ion color? Couldn't they have used a black-and-white image with such low quality that nobody can understand what's going on? Three: encyclopedias don't normally have pictures. I mean, this is just too much. Pictures of guillotines are fine because they aren't in use. But this? Come on, Wikipedia admins, why would you even allow this? 2600:1700:6180:6290:404D:4C34:453A:BE5B (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC) Template:Abot