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