Talk:Carmenelectra

A fact from Carmenelectra appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 February 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Carmenelectra was named after the model (pictured) because both have "splendid" bodies?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/February.

Wikipedia

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Diptera Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Diptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of flies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DipteraWikipedia:WikiProject DipteraTemplate:WikiProject DipteraDiptera
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

pic

Does this article need a jerk-off picture? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Wikipedia is not censored. Secondly, you may consider the image a "jerk-off picture", but it does not mean that everyone does. I, for one, don't. Surtsicna (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather with Seb_az86556. A picture of the actress is probably needed, but there are probably public domain pictures of her in more than underwear. And are there no pictures of the bug?Nickpheas (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there do not appear to be any public domain images of the fly on the internet. The fly was named after Electra because "both namesakes exemplify splendid somal structure for their respective taxa". The presently used image, added by StAnselm, illustrates the model's "splendid somal structure". The caption itself says so. I fail to see what is offensive about a woman in underwear, especially given that she is a model by profession and that we are not editing the Catholic Encyclopedia. Surtsicna (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay. It illustrates the rationale behind the naming, and if thereby it sheds light on the thought processes of certain members of the scientific community, so be it. Regarding the characterization of the photograph as a "jerk-off picture", are you serious? One would have to be very young and excitable for that to work. Being old and jaded myself, I need at least La maja desnuda. Favonian (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was not easy to cheer me up after all of this, but you (probably inadvertently) succeeded. Thank you for bringing Goya into all of this! Surtsicna (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a note the single (I think) fossil for which the genus was named has never had a public domain image released. I sadly don't have access to the type description to verify the location or number of specimens. I think the image is appropriate for the article.--Kev min § 19:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The picture in question has been removed from WP, so this issue is moot. I'll close the RfC. Feel free to restore the RfC tag if more discussion is required. --Noleander (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is definitely not moot. Since there are lots of pictures of Carmen Electra available, the obvious thing would be to add a different one. St Anselm (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the picture before noticing this discussion -- normally I would have discussed first. Sorry about that. However, in this case it seems pretty obvious to me, so I'm not inclined to revert myself. The caption is certainly unnecessary; it's an ~~unattributed~~whoops, I see it is attributed in the body. and flippant quote about somal structure. (It made me chuckle, but that's not really the purpose of an encyclopedia.) But I don't think a picture is needed at all; Carmen Electra's appearance is not, from anything the article says, in any way related to the fly. If by chance (and it would be mere chance) a reader is curious what she looks like, her bio is a single click away. The article is, and should be, primarily about the fly, not about who it's named after. -Pete (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude image of celebrity - WP is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. It is okay for this article to textually link to the Carmen Electra article, but including a photo is not really needed. Particularly if it is accompanied by a humorous caption. Furthermore, the article does not even have a picture of the fossil itself. From a priority viewpoint, editors should spend their time trying to get an illustration of the fossil. Including a photo of the celeb without a photo of the fossil could confuse many readers. After a pic of the fossil is included, then perhaps a photo of the celeb could be considered. --Noleander (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The picture in no way detracts from the article. And as I noted, the original fossil does not have a free use image released so it will be image-less for the time being. The image of Mrs Electra is not, in my opinion, confusing in anyway. --Kev min § 04:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]