Talk:Pearl necklace (sexual act)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Linkimage discussion for the new image

Note that the previous discussions concern a different, deleted image. Prolog 15:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think there is much to discuss here, as policies are clear on this, but an anonymous user keeps changing the inline image to a link from several Texas IP's. This is an image of a person's neck, with some sperm on it. Hiding the image is in violation of WP:NOT and WP:NPOV, which are both official policies of Wikipedia, not to mention that the content disclaimer covers all this. Prolog 00:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree. Remove the linkimage, have an inline image. Fishies Plaice 17:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Prolog. --BMF81 04:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So am I, but firts get a better image.

--Simonlebon 20:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• We should linkimage the photo.

The rationale is that it a resonable compromise between several competing aims. One of those aims is to be informative. That aim is met since anyone can make a simple click to see the image. Another aim is to aid the general reputation of the project. Although you may disagree with their opinion, there are lots of readers that would say such an image is not worthy of being in an encyclopedia at all. Some of these people object or moral grounds, etc. While we may not agree with them, linking the image allows them to read an informative article without veiwing the image. Another set of people would be people who come to this article not knowing what the term means. They may be browsing at work or at school, and this gives them also a chance to read the article and then decide if they want to click the image. Another aim is to keep Wikipedia legal and available to as many people as possible. There are many jurisdictions where presenting pornographic images to minors is illegal. Putting the image behind a link helps us to avoid running afoul of those laws.

With respect to the often cited WP:not censored, nothing there prevents us from making editorial decisions. What it is saying is that content is not reviewed by a central authority before being posted. It is really a disclaimer saying that we have examined every single thing that any editor decides to post some day. At any moment in term, any article may contain anything. However, that doesn't remove our editorial freedom to decide what we want to be in the articles. Nothing in WP:not censored forces us to include anything.

In conclusion then, the linkimage violates no policy, and it seems a very reasonable compromise to help address competing aims. I hope you and others will join me in accepting this compromise so that we can devote our energies to making the text of the article as informative as possible. Johntex\^talk 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We should link the image. 'Wikipedia is not censored' is not an excuse for trying to surprise readers with objectionable and tacky images. -- Donald Albury 00:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"trying to surprise readers with objectionable and tacky images" sounds like you are neglecting to assume good faith.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As a reply to Johntex's message above and this: Can you please explain how the old discussions are valid, when that image 1. was different 2. was less illustrative and 3. has been deleted? Can you also explain why you keep adding the linkimage template, when this action has been opposed by five editors in good standing, and supported only by one? From these comments, it also seems that you are suggesting that every sexuality-related image needs first a talk page consensus to have it inline, otherwise it is hidden. But surely that is not standard procedure. Of course, there will always be people objecting to the image, but as Wikipedia:Content disclaimer states: "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy." There is no need for a supposed compromise, when the counter-aguments to policies and the Manual of Style are NSFW and IDONTLIKEIT. I also find your legal speculation as an exaggeration. Wikipedia is not censored even for the protection of minors, not to mention that this is an image of a human neck. "Simple click to see the image" is not how images are normally displayed on articles. The only way the linkimage does not necessarily violate WP:NOT and WP:NPOV, is having a consensus for it and there is currently none. Editorial decisions can be made, but making that decision as a minority view and pushing it through without a consensus is not appropriate. Prolog 06:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There are two editors stating that the image should be linked, versus 5 who say it should not be linked. That is not a consensus for either posiiton. In a lack of consensus, it is reasonable to default to the most recent concensus. We previously had a consensus to linkimage the other photo. This photo is not that different from the first photo. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to revert to that consensus.

As I state above, and which I can elaborate on as needed, this has nothing to do with censorship. Nothing in Wikipedia policy REQUIRES us to show an image inline. The linkimage tool is here for a reason and it is very useful for exactly this sort of case. Contrary to what some people may think, we do remove inappropriate images from Wikipedia. Jimbo Wals himself deleted one from this very article. Using linkimage here is a very good compromise between showing the image directly and removing it completely. Johntex\^talk 08:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Supposed consensus about image A overriding a discussion about image B is your opinion, so please do not use that as a reason to revert. I also do not understand what is the problem with the discussion right here. Consensus can change, and if a controversial template does not have it, then it should not be used. After all, the normal Wikipedia way to display an image is inline and that does not require a consensus, as long as the community has not decided against it. What we have here at the moment is a "no consensus", not to mention that none of the supporters of the template have been able to cite policies as their reasons. The template originated from lengthy lolicon and autofellatio debates and was used only after either a community consensus or Jimbo's take. Here is neither. To quote your argument from the Tfd discussion: "The template is very useful and should be used when the editors of a given article reach consensus to do so." Prolog 21:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Prolog that there is no consensus for using linkimage with this new image, and that given the lack of consensus, it is reasonable to do things in "the normal Wikipedia way".   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

re Johntex's "removing it completely", who's advocating that?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Prolog that Johntex's "making that decision [to use linkimage] as a minority view and pushing it through without a consensus is not appropriate".   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

re Johntex's "pornographic", how is this image "pornographic"? How does the use of linkimage prevent "presenting pornographic images to minors"? Also, on what "moral grounds" might one object to the image but accept the linkimage instead? For that matter, on what "moral grounds" might one object to the practice or discussion of the article's subject? Perhaps we can specifically include those POVs? In addition, assumption on your part that there is a non-empty set of "people who come to this article not knowing what the term means" and who also expect not to see an image appears to be disingenuous - see "(sexuality)" in the article title. Finally, re "competing aims", what are your aims and POVs? Mine include compliance with established policies, provision of uncensored unbiased information to the general public, and activities to promote them. Mine do not include creation of the subject of the article (I never have) and viewing of the subject of the article (I do not find viewing of the subject of the article to be any more or less enjoyable that the viewing of other sexuality-related acts and their results).   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Prolog that the image should be used inline, rather than with linkimage.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• We should remove the image or at least put it behind the link. It is possible that knowingly providing such an image to minors would be against the law. Even if that turns out not to be the case, people shouldn't have such an image sprung upon them. They can make one click to view the image and that is no big hardship. Force10 08:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree the image should be linked. Note that Jimbo deleted the image under the Creampie sexuality article because of the legal issue with minors. Removing the image had nothing to do with censorship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.64.229 (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

In-line. People may not like viewing this picture, but some people may not like the images in Spiders either. The picture is not pornography and there is no legal issue. "Gross" is not a good argument, and "Someone else might find it gross" is an even worse one. Baiter 04:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Serving our readers is a perfectly reasonable goal to have in mind. As part of that, we would naturally want to keep in mind their expectations and needs. Most readers would expect to see an image of a spider in an encyclopedia. Most readers would not expect to see images of sexual acts in an encyclopedia. Johntex\^talk 15:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This is still just plain prudery. If you go looking in an encyclopedia for a spider or a pearl necklace (sexuality) you shouldn't be shocked by either. This is a silly argument to be having in any case. No one has the right not to be shocked, surprised or offended by any material in Wikipedia. Zotdragon 18:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There is really no reason to call someone elses view "prudery" or "silly". That is not needed, it is not nice, and it is not helpful to the discussion. Please just say what you disagree with instead of being insulting.

One thing you seem to have overlooked is that people will look up words to see what they mean. That is part of the role of an encyclopedia. If they come to us looking to learn what a pearl necklace is then we can't expect them to know what it is before they come. Therefore, we can't expect them to be ready for the image. Johntex\^talk 18:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

How would people get to this article from article space, other than the direct links "Pearl necklace (sexuality), ejaculating thick clumps of semen onto someone's neck" in article pearl necklace (where someone would go if they were truly "looking to learn what a pearl necklace is") or "See Pearl necklace (sexuality) in sexuality" in article necklace (disambiguation), or the links in articles about other biological functions and images like mammary intercourse, facial (sexuality), or cum shot? In other words, people will not come to us and view this article "looking to learn what a pearl necklace is", they will come to us and view article pearl necklace instead. Since I disagree with one of your premises, I also disagree with your conclusion that "we can't expect them to be ready for the image."   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you miss understand me. I mean that they will be looking for this article (pearl necklace-sexuality and not pearl necklace-jewlry) but that they will expect to see a plain text article, not a photo. My source for this belief is all the general purpose encyclopedias that talk about sexual acts and don't show pictures of sexual acts. Most of our sexually related articles don't have photos either. Also, we can make any word link to anything. Would you like a banana?Johntex\^talk 23:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So, do you advocate removing all actual pictures from Wikipedia article space, or just pictures depicting sexual acts? I don't believe that this picture even depicts a sexual act, just the result of one. But I do believe that articles describing sexual acts should have pictures or at least illustrations. No, I don't like bananas, but I did check Special:Whatlinkshere/Pearl_necklace (sexuality) before posting.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all photos depicting sexual acts should be linkimaged. Showing that no misleading links here now is no protection against a misleading or confusing link being added in the future. The simple fact is that we just can't expect everyone coming here to know what this term means before they read the article. Johntex\^talk 02:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why just use linkimage to censor photos depicting sexual acts? Why not, say, all photos depicting women because they might offend the most observant practitioners of some religions?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jeff. This is not an image of a sexual act, it is an image of a neck with some semen on it. A sexual act would be a penis ejaculating on the neck. Besides, even if most encyclopedias are censored, this one is not. Prolog 02:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

re Zotdragon's "you shouldn't be shocked by either", I agree that one shouldn't be shocked by images in an encyclopedia that accurately depict the subjects of their articles. I believe that this is one such image, and that it should be inline.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be pushing a POV about how you want the world to work. Who are you (we) to tell people what to do about their emotions and beliefs? Johntex\^talk 23:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I want the world to work better. I want Wikipedia to work better. I want people to be able to use Wikipedia as a comprehensive resource, not one limited by certain POVs. I freely admit to all of this. What do you feel I have told you to do about your emotions and beliefs? What of your emotions and beliefs are affected by having an image, specifically this picture image, in this article? How is that accomplished?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about my emotions. I am talking about peoples' emotions in general. I don't see what right you have to say that people should not be shocked. They can't help their emotional reaction. You can't force them not to be shocked. Johntex\^talk 02:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a disclaimer. It may contain shocking images. People who may be shocked by disturbing images should not be browsing Wikipedia willy-nilly with images turned on. Vandals attempt to use shocking images on Wikipedia to shock people all the time.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The linkimage does not interfere with anything you want. Wikipedia is just as comprehensive if the image is linked. All the information is still there. Johntex\^talk 02:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The linkimage interferes with browsing of a useful article that has an embedded / inline image, just like a normal printed uncensored encyclopedia. Viewers have to click on one of the links Sexuality_pearl_necklace_small.png or (view file) in order to actually view the image.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I want Wikipedia to be a better place also. That means providing informaiton in a form that will resonate with most people. Societal norms come into play in that. Offending them and driving them away helps no one. There is no reason to needlessly offend people for the sake of manking some sort of point just because you feel people should not be shocked or offended. Johntex\^talk 02:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Societal norms of what society? Should we not write about death, for fear of offending old people? Should we not write about children, for fear of offending the childless? Where does it all end? This is a slippery slope you are pushing us down.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

re Johntex's "Most readers would not expect to see images of sexual acts in an encyclopedia", please see sexual acts, sexual act, and their redirect target human sexual behavior. Would you care to cite your sources for your POV?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And none of those articles have a photograph of a sexual act. Neiter does List of sex positions - it contains drawings. Johntex\^talk 23:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Poor fruition of other articles has no bearing on this article.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If you will not accept arguments about what we do elsewhere on Wikipedia then all your arguments about what happens elsewhere on Wikipedia would be similarly irrelevant. That would include tossing out any precedent to have a picture at all for any article, prefering free images, etc. Clearly, we can't toss out precendent. Pointing out how we have chosen to handle other articles on sexually related topics is a perfectly valid argument. Johntex\^talk 02:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding me. "none of those articles have a photograph of a sexual act" because a suitable photograph hasn't been attached to them yet. The process of editing Wikipedia articles is generally one of adding, not taking away. What you have been doing is taking away. This article has had a photograph for the vast majority of its life, starting with its creation. Other articles related to sexuality and other adult human interpersonal contact, like homosexuality, gender, intersexuality, bisexuality, polyamory, adultery, human bonding, courtship, family, marriage, pederasty in the modern world, pederasty, etc. also have images that are photographs, and other articles related to sexuality and other adult human interpersonal contact, like divorce, incest, jealousy, Platonic love, polygamy etc. only have images that are not photographs (such as representations of drawings, tables, charts, and other non-photographic artwork).   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read and considered the discussion on this matter, and am very much inclined to agree with Johntex. Providing a linkimage takes nothing away from the article, it is not a case of removing the photograph from Wikipedia, but it will allow more people to learn about the subject at hand without being distracted by such an explicit image. The articles with photographs you refer to miss the point- while we seem to have reached an agreement that the photo does not depict a sexual act, and is not pornographic, it does depict the direct result of a sexual act. There is no image on Homosexuality showing two men engaging in anal sex, or two women engaging in lesbian sex. Many of the other pages could not be considered to refer directly to any particual sexual act. Others which do refer to a specific act, as this article does, such as bukkake, Cleveland Steamer, anal sex, cum shot, gushing, Dirty Sanchez and the aforementioned creampie also do not contain photographs of the act or the result. Whilst I respect and celebrate Wikipedia's freedom from censorship, I would suggest that such a prominent image detracts from the quality of the article, by being an unnecessarily controversial distraction from the article's text. Wikipedia is here to provide knowledge and allow people to learn- not to provoke a reaction. --Lawlore 04:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

re Baiter's "The picture is not pornography", I agree.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

But it is tacky and makes Wikipedia look like a peep show. -- Donald Albury 02:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion, but I don't find it "tacky" at all. On the contrary, it is a very nice and encyclopedic photograph. If all editors would go on opposing to images they think are tacky, the image content on this encyclopedia would not be very neutral. Prolog 02:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't find it "tacky" either. And what's wrong with the "peep show" genre?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

re 67.101.64.229's reply about the removal of "the image under the Creampie sexuality article", I think that image was probably pornographic in Jimbo's mind (although I haven't seen it), and keeping it would have subjected Wikipedia to additional legal burdens. I have documented its removal at Image talk:Creampiesex.jpg.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That image was very similar to this image. The only difference was that the recipients face was also visible. Johntex\^talk 23:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we're discussing different images. This thread portion appears to be discussing the image which made its way here.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you are right. We are talking about very different pictures - my mistake. The image I am talking about was a pearl necklace on a woman's neck. The only difference between that image and this one is that in the other image you could see the woman's face. Jimbo personally deleted the one you are talking about, citing concerns about pornography laws. I think it was Jimbo that deleted the pearl necklace picture as well, but I can't find the diff to say for sure. Johntex\^talk 02:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If this is what you mean, it was not deleted by Jimbo and the reason for deletion was copyright violation. Prolog 02:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe you you were both writing about was File:Woman Pearl Necklace.jpg, which was uploaded at 06:44 on 8 July 2006 (UTC) by Publicgirluk (Talk | contribs) with the description "I own the copyright as it it is a self pic. Happy for it to be used. Publicgirluk" and deleted at 00:11 on 28 August 2006 (UTC) by Voice of All (Talk | contribs) with the description "Deleted mass bad faith or copyright violating image uploads by a single user." per these log entries.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

re Force10's "It is possible that knowingly providing such an image to minors would be against the law", what law? The image is not pornographic. It does not depict a sexual act in progress. It does not depict anatomy associated with nudity. And how does hiding the image behind a linkimage tag change Wikipedia's (lack of) culpabiliy for "knowingly providing such an image to minors"?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• User:JeffGent has removed the linkimage. There is no consensus here to have the picture in-line. Unless consensus is established one way or another then the prior consensus to use limkimage should be maintained. Therefore, I have restored the linkimage.

Jeff, please don't remove the linkimage again. Also, please don't use misleading edit summaries. Your edit summary asked people to discuss on the talk page and not revert. I ask you to please follow that advice yourself. You have made only a signle-line contribution to the discussion. You don't even share your reasoning. Johntex\^talk 19:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy is right here; inline image is standard and unless community consensus decides otherwise, illustrative images should be added the way that Manual of Style advises to; inline. As I mentioned before, "consensus" (I don't even see it) about a different image being valid here is only your opinion. Either way, consensus can change and both policies and clear majority of editors currently support having the image inline. Prolog 19:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with all of Prolog's statements, for Prolog's stated reasons.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Alecmconroy's edit summary for this edit was "rv. By default, Wikipedia is not censored-- I see no evidence of a consensus to hide the image." I also "see no evidence of a consensus to hide the image" that is the subject of the current image tag.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There is also no consensus here to have that picture image linkimaged, and prior consensus on a different image has no bearing on this discussion.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm sorry about reverting before posting my discussion, I'll try to avoid that in the future.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, we are discussing the use of the Wikitext {{linkimage|Sexuality_pearl_necklace_small.png|An example of a "pearl necklace".}} by a small minority to replace the text [[Image:Sexuality_pearl_necklace_small.png|right|thumb|An example of a "pearl necklace".]].   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced trivia

I have again removed unsourced items from the Trivia section. These items had been tagged as needing citations in early January. I accordingly removed the items after no attempt had been made for a full month to provide citations. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence, these items may not be re-added to the article until and unless they are cited from reliable sources. -- Donald Albury 12:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion from Image talk:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png

(Moving this discussion here, as it was in a less-than-useful place. Mangojuice^talk 17:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

This image should be removed and a diagramtic replacement should be found.

A diagram of a pearl necklace? Talk about useless.

Are you both mad? What we really need is a raytraced CG image with bitmapped textures and lens flares. Rob T Firefly 01:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Private session" behavior belongs in private, not in public.

Delete this image. A simple verbal description suffices.70.253.82.193 05:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that this image really demonstrates a pearl necklace very well. Every time that I have ever given a woman a pearl necklace, it has looked like an actual necklace, i.e. it flowed from between the breasts around the neck. This looks more like a "pearl choker" --Cunnilingus1 07:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It may not be a wonderful example but until someone uploads a better example, it gives people some idea of what is meant by 'pearl necklace': more illustrative than text alone. --Interesdom 08:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that if you're allowed to link to pornographic websites on pornstars wikipedia entries then why not allow the image? Since its on a sexuality page, whoever is looking at it knows what they've come to find out. --59.101.224.204 03:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Structure "Pictures should not include the person covered in any bodily fluids, including semen" Joie de Vivre 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProjects are not policies or guidelines, and anyone can possibly add what they want to these pages. This article is also not part of that project (see top of this talk page), so you probably confused WikiProject Pornography with WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. There is, however, a related policy proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines, but it has failed to achieve consensus and seems to be currently pretty inactive. Maybe you are interested in reviving the discussion. Prolog 21:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, this article is also not part of that project.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Since some want a picture and some don't, using Linkimage is a great compromise. It prevents causing unecesary offense while still preserving the photo here for anyone who wishes to see it. Johntex\^talk 06:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to fix the link so that it doesn't cause page stretching (as it does on my 1280x1024 display)? Also note that I personally think that it should be an embedded image, but I'm not going to change it without consensus. --Darksun 12:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

While compromise would be nice, using linkimage is not it. The long discussion above is not about removing or keeping the image, but keeping the image inline or using the linkimage template. I don't see how something that most editors disagree with could be called a compromise. Although the template survived the Tfd, the use of it is still often controversial and the common opinion in the deletion discussion was to seek consensus on case-by-case basis. There apparently is such consensus on a few articles, but I don't see it here. Prolog 12:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see consensus to use linkimage here.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There should just be more because what if you don't know like what a pearl necklace looks like on a black girl? or even an asian girl?

The ethnicity of the recipient is irrelevant to understanding the subject of the article. Joie de Vivre 14:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs to have "high resolution available." ?

I was able to understand the topic with the depiction at the current size. Joie de Vivre 14:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)