 | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 July 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Photo illustration at top edit
Does this photo actually depict an intern at work, or is it just an excuse to show a scantily clad woman? Unless the photo documents a real outfit somebody wore to work, it's non-encyclopedic—it's like illustrating the article on Julius Caesar with some guy dressed in a toga. The person in the photo needs to be a "skintern," and the photo as far as I can tell just illustrates a particular fashion look (which is not the topic of tha article). Cynwolfe (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, a lot of the articles I cited as sources discuss that "miniskirt plus exposed belly" look, so I believe a picture showing that is better than nothing (We cannot, IMO, run an article that is primarily about clothing without having a picture of some kind). If you or someone would you know can get someone to pose dressed like that in an office setting (and it looks more like an office than any other image I could find on Commons, including the original one), then upload the image. Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Do not do this. It is an excellent way to be sued for sexual harassment.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- OK, then, you could hire a model to dress that way and pose while making copies or answering a phone, or something like that. While the usual model release includes (I think) the model's personality rights, meaning the photographer could use it for any purpose and not worry about getting sued (the infamous Jamie Messenger case ended with a verdict in her favor only because she was a minor at the time and her parents did not cosign the release, so therefore it was invalid (and even absent that issue, under state law it was journalism and exempt from a personality-rights claim anyway), it would probably be ethical to advise her of exactly how the photo would be used in any event. And of course, the image doesn't have to show her face, or at least not in a recognizable way (as this one doesn't)).
Or we could just, for the time being, try our hands at drawing something that would work. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- OK, then, you could hire a model to dress that way and pose while making copies or answering a phone, or something like that. While the usual model release includes (I think) the model's personality rights, meaning the photographer could use it for any purpose and not worry about getting sued (the infamous Jamie Messenger case ended with a verdict in her favor only because she was a minor at the time and her parents did not cosign the release, so therefore it was invalid (and even absent that issue, under state law it was journalism and exempt from a personality-rights claim anyway), it would probably be ethical to advise her of exactly how the photo would be used in any event. And of course, the image doesn't have to show her face, or at least not in a recognizable way (as this one doesn't)).
- Do not do this. It is an excellent way to be sued for sexual harassment.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Is the current external image link to a Pinterest montage (assembled by an unknown person from unknown source images of unknown people) really that much better here? It again seems to be more an illustration of a particular fashion look. --31.48.187.89 (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- @31.48.187.89: The point is that the person who put the montage together is presenting these photos as examples of looks to avoid when doing your summer internship. They probably aren't actual skinterns, but they don't have to be for the image to make its point. Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the link at least be to an illustrated news article about skinterns, rather than an anonymous social media pic? It seems weird that it would be wrong for me to add a random photo of a woman and caption it "this is what skinterns dress like", but fine if I hosted that exact same photo on Pinterest with a photoshopped title, and put an external image link to it. --31.48.187.89 (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if you can find one of those articles ... One of the sources might have a picture, but I don't remember them having one. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the link at least be to an illustrated news article about skinterns, rather than an anonymous social media pic? It seems weird that it would be wrong for me to add a random photo of a woman and caption it "this is what skinterns dress like", but fine if I hosted that exact same photo on Pinterest with a photoshopped title, and put an external image link to it. --31.48.187.89 (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- "examples of skintern dressing habits". Pinterest.
- @Daniel Case: Please pick a photo from the commons, and not the link you keep placing at the top of the page. Of course, this whole article reeks of misogyny, so it may be better to not have a photo at all. --evrik (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
External links edit
External links belong at the bottom per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Links_to_sister_projects. --evrik (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Evrik: See note 2 under WP:ELPOINTS (I have taken these two out of the article for the time being). Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Which note 2? (With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.[2] Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable.)--evrik (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- That's item 2. I'm talking about the note you see when you roll over the superscript note 2 you included above. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)