Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/genitalia

Male genitalia, the giver of life? edit

'

The human penis gives life, and I think this image sums up the article quite well. It also makes people want to "read on" into the feature; Penis; User:Shadi_nija.

Nominate and support. - 172.189.2.219 12:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Theological theories aside, does the male "give life" to a person any more than the female? Not very npov. Some consider that it is actually only an organ to deliver one-half of the chromosomes that a life is built around. As well, there are likely to be some people who will simply hit their back button as quickly as they can when presented with such a spectacle. Oppose. --Fire Star 13:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While it no doubt adds to the article. This image is too controversial to feature. Featured images are shown on the main page and numerous user pages where it could cause serious problems. In addition to that: even if it would only gained featured status and not be used on the main page or userpages, I don't find the image of particular good quality. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to bother removing the premature oppose votes, because i'm pretty sure the above aren't changing their minds. Phoenix2 01:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see what you mean. I was unfamiliar with the comment period, I came across the intial offering on RC patrol. You are correct that I wouldn't change my agreement with the other opposing voters. --Fire Star 15:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another candidate on FPC that is going to be surrounded with controversy. The autofellatio image some weeks ago must have recieved a record amount of discussion on this page. As for this image, I wil bring up the same point that I did earlier. The nominator here has only given one reason why this image should be featured, and that is that "the human penis gives life". I will oppose here because none of the FPC criteria are fulfilled. Should "no obviously sexual images" be added to that list of criteria? Also, lastly, I personally am not motivated to "read on" the rest of the article having seen this image. Phoenix2 01:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a brilliant picture -- just anatomy on black background. It doesn't evoke any strong emotions except for the ones inherent in the subject. I suspect this is a bad faith nomination, but I wouldn't want to categorically say that such a picture cannot become featured. One area where I'd like to see a featured picture is ancient phallic imagery. For example, we have a fair use image of a phallic windchime from Pompeii. It would be wonderful to have a high resolution photo of such an object, with good lighting and background, under a free license.--Eloquence * 07:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Removed this was blatantly only created as a violation of WP:POINT also this is invalid due to being nommed by an IP and with no logged in user willing to second the nomination. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it ought to be included...for sheer shock value alone. 'tis a beautiful thing after all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.241.212 (talk • contribs)