Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Image reversal comment

The lead image wiki text has a comment saying "Do not reverse image to look towards text - not allowed per MOS:IMAGE". The guidance says "Images should not be changed in ways that materially mislead the viewer. For example, images showing artworks, faces, identifiable places or buildings, or text should not be reversed (although those showing soap bubbles or bacteria might be)" and at MOS:PORTRAIT section, it says "It is often preferable to place a portrait (image or representation of a person) so that they "look" toward the text, but do not achieve this by reversing the image, which creates a false presentation. (Faces are never truly symmetric even in the absence of scars or other features.)"

There are two reasons I don't think that rule applies to this image. Firstly, it is not a portrait, which is an image intended to convey someone's likeness. This is effectively a stock photo, with an anonymous subject. Stock and fashion photos are routinely reversed in publications, such as in clothing catalogues or adverts, which is one reason models with symmetrical features are desirable. The woman is still pregnant even if we flip the image, whereas a photo of the subject of the article would unlikely to be faithful if flipped. Secondly, the woman isn't actually looking out of the page, even if her head and body face that way. She is looking directly at the camera/reader. One could argue, having her straight back against the body text is a better arrangement than having the bump facing it.

Its a small thing, but I propose we drop the comment. I think the image is fine in the direction it is. The biggest problem with the image is that it is very low resolution. I think the comment gives people wrong ideas about what MOS is trying to achieve with that rule, which is to not misrepresent known people (or landscapes or whatever). -- Colin°Talk 09:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are correct. We looked long and hard for this photo and I think we found a good one. The pixel problem does not bother me at all. Sectionworker (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead image

Hi TadejM. You recently changed the infobox image to a mirrored version so that the woman shown is facing in toward the text. I almost reverted citing MOS:PORTRAIT

It is often preferable to place a portrait (image or representation of a person) so that they "look" toward the text, but do not achieve this by reversing the image, which creates a false presentation. (Faces are never truly symmetric even in the absence of scars or other features.)

It occurred to me that this might be an exception, since the image is not really about the person herself, or her face. Do you think the value of the "facing in" outweighs the issue of false presentation? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Firefangledfeathers. Thanks for letting me know. The image is used to show how a typical pregnant woman looks like and it doesn't actually matter whether she is seen from the left or the right. This is different to biographical articles, where that could be misleading as to a specific person's appearance. For this reason, I believe this does not create any false presentation and suggest keeping the image facing the text. --TadejM my talk 16:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts on this. I'm fine with that, and we can see if anyone feels otherwise. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I usually feel very strongly about having the photo opening into the article, whether a person or a scene. However, I just don't have that same feeling here...and I can't even say exactly why that is. I am an artist and she has a strong Mona Lisa smile...so maybe that has something to do with it. Sectionworker (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers, it seems you didn't see my post in the section just above. I think it is interesting that even experienced editors fail to spot relevant talk-page discussions. IMO, the woman is facing the camera, not to the side (e.g., File:Désiré-Magloire Bourneville.jpg looks to the left). Regardless, people do seem to have a desire to have her body facing the text, so if it stops people flipping the image back and forward, then let's leave it here. -- Colin°Talk 07:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I blame it on "Add-topic-button blindness"! I made this a subsection of yours, so at least they'll stick together. Seems like we have a mix of people that have an orientation preference and people that know about the mirror image portrait rule but are fine with an exception, or who think it doesn't really apply. I agree with your point above that the resolution of the image is the greater problem. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The Image

I saw that the Page's First Image is now reversed, It used to be not reversed, it even said that it isn't reversed and that the Wikipedia Rules said that images cannot be in reverse, but now it got reversed for some reason, it wasn't like that before, Does anyone know Why? CGIGamer94 (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

How can you tell it's reversed? Our normal practice is to position photographs of people looking into the text. Since the person is unnamed, it doesn't matter whether it's facing the way the original pic looked or not. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
CGIGamer94, you could have a look at the section above. -- Colin°Talk 07:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh Ok, I was able to tell it was reversed because I remember before it was the other side, but it actually doesn't matter because the Person is unnamed, Thanks! CGIGamer94 (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Removed details

This:

More specific, the cannabinoid receptor CB1 are at high levels on the blastocyst (fertilized egg), ready to the attachment with the endocannabinoid anandamide, an N-Acylethanolamine, if present at low level (temporary reduction), at the uterine lining (endometrium), which are necessary for the fertilized embryo can attach itself to the uterine wall, i.e. implantation, and without this connection, there will be no pregnancy.[1][2][3]

was put into the middle of the lead, and I can't imagine why that level of detail was put in that place. Nobody except a researcher is likely to need to know this level of technical detail. I could imagine it being included in an article somewhere (though perhaps not a general article like this one), but I can't imagine it being needed at the top of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wang, Haibin; Huirong, Xie; Dey, Sudhansu K. (2006-06-16). "Endocannabinoid signaling directs periimplantation events". AAPS J. 8 (2): E425–E432. doi:10.1007/BF02854916. PMC 3231559. PMID 16808046.
  2. ^ Wang, Haibin; Matsumoto, Hiromichi; Guo, Yong; Paria, Bibhash C.; Roberts, Richard L.; Dey, Sudhansu K. (2003-11-26). "Differential G protein-coupled cannabinoid receptor signaling by anandamide directs blastocyst activation for implantation". Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 100 (25): 14914–14919. doi:10.1073/pnas.2436379100. PMC 299852. PMID 14645706.
  3. ^ Trabucco, E.; Acone, G.; Marenna, A.; Pierantoni, R.; Cacciola, G.; Chioccarelli, T.; Mackie, K.; Fasano, S.; Colacurci, N.; Meccariello, R.; Cobellis, G.; Cobellis, L. (2009-06-01). "Endocannabinoid System in First Trimester Placenta: Low FAAH and High CB1 Expression Characterize Spontaneous Miscarriage". Placenta. 30 (6): 516–522. doi:10.1016/j.placenta.2009.03.015. ISSN 0143-4004. PMID 19419760.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pregnancy/Archive_11&oldid=1224990162"