This is an archive of past discussions about Man. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Current image is bad, looks like a AI generated image. I think having a full body nude photo is the right way here. Proposed one is on the page we have dedicated to this subject. However these headshots are not the move. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for using jargon - having just a headshot is not very encyclopedic as it doesn't impart the reader with the full picture of what is "man" - should be a full body image at least, in my opinion a nude. "not the move" means not right for the article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussions on the page linked generally expressed a preference for a clothed model, and eliminated several candidate pictures based on that. To avoid SURPRISEing readers, it is best if the lead image is "safe for work", as it will appear in Wikipedia search results, Google Knowledge Graph, etc..
The fact that most men have a Penis is a notable fact, but not essential to illustrating the topic. The picture should communicate Who, what, where, not encapsulate everything notable (LEADCLUTTER). Additionally, the notion that a particular body type is essential to manhood and male identity is a contentious topic, which I'd like to avoid hashing out in project-space for the umpty thousandth time. A picture of nude male and female bodies is included just below the fold, in Man § Biology, which should satisfy the need for one. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Obviously a penis is not essential to manhood, nor is a beard/flannel shirt/crossed arms posed. There is a reason that the Pioneer plaque included two naked humans. I am fine with including a nude form whose genitalia are covered such as https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Study_(35316333023).jpg or something similar. I was not trying to impart the notion that any one type body is essential to manhood - I said nude, not genitalia on full display. I am a bit offended that you presumed I meant to imply that a penis or any kind of body type is essential to manhood. I believe WP:NOTCENSORED applies here and the lead image should be at least a full body photo (again, preferably nude). There are plenty of images of commons which are tasteful nudes that do not display genitalia, and there are also plenty of non-photographic representations of men that could be used as well (although I think a photo adds the most EV). LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
"Nude portrait in study" by Sasha Kargaltsev I apologize for being presumptuous. If the goal is not to depict notable sex differences on the male body (genitals, smaller breasts, musculature, etc.), then I can't see the value in a nude/partially-nude subject. I understand that nudity on its own is not a relevant criteria for excluding an image (and originally included this as a likely rebuttal to my previous message), but unlike on biology-focused articles like Human body, I don't understand how male nudity is relevant or necessary in the primary image for this topic.
For that matter, I don't consider a nude portrait with tastefully obscured genitals any less WP:GRATUITOUS. Your example (right) is unacceptable due to the uneven lighting, awkward pose, and cluttered background. Our existing image under Biology is excellent at portray[ing] the human body in an unemotional, non-sexual standard anatomical position, and if we insisted on using a nude photo, I would probably prefer we used a crop of it. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 19:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes I would also prefer a crop of the suggested image - mostly served for inspiration. I think the current photo having significant facial hair and muscular forearms also depicts sex differences so I just do not think we will find a consensus supported image that is completely androgynous (although some exist on the commons). LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Photograph of an adult male human (right), with an adult female for comparison. The pubic hair of both models is removed. We already have an image of a nude man (along with a nude woman, for comparison purposes) in the Man#Biology section. Most men wear clothes, so it's preferable that the lead image includes a man wearing clothes. I disagree that the current image looks AI-generated; people could say that about any touched-up, professionally taken photograph. Some1 (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
So your argument is that wearing clothing is essential to being a man? I think with an article such as this the lead image should be as precise as possible or at least more visually compelling. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there's an explicit consensus for the current lead image, as in, no RfC was ever held to solidify it as the lead image (as opposed to the Woman article where the lead image was decided via RfC [3]). Maybe an RfC for a new lead image on this article is long overdue. Some1 (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I think an RfC would be rash at this point. There are a lot of images in the sandbox, and none of them are in the direction that you suggest going. If the current image does not reflect consensus, I'm hard pressed to imagine that a full frontal nude will better reflect consensus. I think we need to hash out the list of photos for an RfC before doing an RfC. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓02:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Agree—too soon for an RfC. Before doing that, I'd consider trying to revive discussions on the sandbox page, or creating a new subpage for an new slate of candidate images. Some1 is correct that there is not an RfC-level consensus for Outdoors-man-portrait, but judging by past discussions, it seems like many editors here consider the current image acceptable, and those with concerns or desire to change it (for real and important reasons like Why is he brown-skinned? Actually not all men are brown! and Why is he wearing clothes? Clothes are actually a separate thing from Men, so we shouldn't have them in the picture) are in the minority. No image is going to satisfy everyone, so we shouldn't waste much more breath on it. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 03:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
You're right. I have seen discussions like this before. And I will make a prediction. Given that Wikipedia is not censored, a full frontal nude would be an ideal, policy conforming solution, but inevitably a lot of editors will oppose it quite aggressively because they want Wikipedia to be censored. It will to lead to considerable angst. HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
What policies, exactly? MOS:OMIMG and MOS:LEADIMAGE are most relevant here. WP:NOTCENSORED only means that "offense" is not, on its own, a justification for removing content. It does not mean giving special preference to potentially offensive content when suitable alternatives exist.
As mentioned thrice now in this discussion, the article already contains a photograph (plus one anatomical diagram and one statue) of a nude male body, which no one is bothered by or arguing to remove. Rather, I'm skeptical of the notion that a having a non-anatomical photograph of a nude male subject as the first image in the article is either necessary to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter (WP:IMGCONTENT), or preferable to the current choice. No one thus far has endeavored to explain either of these things. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
A nude image is preferable because it obviously tells the reader more. No. it's not necessary, just better. HiLo48 (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure it tells us more...I think it is misleading, as most humans are generally clothed. If a nude image would give us more of anything, it would be trolls on this talkpage protesting that theirs is bigger. We already have the best, most tasteful, nude anatomical drawing on the page, which does the job way better and is limited to the biology section. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓04:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Of course a nude image tells more. Whether or not it's misleading is an entirely separate matter. Boastful trolls are also an entirely separate matter. And interestingly, while it's certainly something I've seen on general social media, I've never seen that sort of thing here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Glad to have an ally on this. I think people have a few gripes on the image that are VALID.
1. It looks too posed/filtered/like a LinkedIn headshot (aka compositional concerns)
2. Only upper body (not displaying the full subject of the article)
3. Clothed vs. unclothed (debateable which it should be as valid points for both)
@CaptainEek I think your concerns regarding people trolling over weiners are unfounded, WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH in the internet as a whole, as hard as that may be. Additionally there can be tasteful nudes without prominent displays of genitals as "Nude portrait in study" demonstrates. Also the sandbox images you are referencing are nearly half a decade old now. Obviously any RfC will include options/variations on all of these factors. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
This article is not about anatomy. The purpose of the lead image of Man is not to depict the male human body, it's to depict an average man. Same with woman. People wear clothes. A picture of a naked person is appropriate to depict the human anatomy, it is not appropriate to depict an average person. Levivich (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I am open to that argument but then show a full body with clothing. But imo depicting an "average person" is an impossible task. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
"Average" suggests certain features which are most common among the human race, e.g. brown skin, brown hair, brown eyes (not white skin, not blonde hair, not blue eyes). Average height, average weight, so nobody very tall or short, nobody very thin or heavy. As for a standing picture, I'd have no objection. The difficulty is in finding the image. Levivich (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
So for that reason I don't understand why we cannot have a black individual or latinamerican person as the image... I understand that my first options were white dudes but that was mostly discussion to move towards a full body photo. A new RfC would allow for discussion surrounding this. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why you would think we cannot have a Black individual or Latino person as the image. Don't need an RfC until there's new images to consider. Levivich (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
This current discussion allows for discussion surrounding this. If you feel it insufficiently captures consensus, you could notify relevant wikiprojects.
We can spin our wheels discussing what we'd like out of a hypothetical image, but if you're insistent on using a new image, it would be helpful to actually produce one. Without a slate of plausible candidate(s), an RfC would be an enormous waste of time.
Of those discussed, I think the current one is the most acceptable and exemplary of the topic, for being a (1) high-quality and professional photo of a (2) non-white man in a (3) neutral pose (4) against a simple background. Full body framing would be acceptable but I don't think it's necessary for understanding because (for the nth time) there are other pictures on the article which fill in the anatomical gaps. Also, compared to a taller aspect ratio image, a tightly framed chest-up portrait is accessible and readable on a variety of screen sizes. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 05:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I support the change of the lead image to a full body image even if it was full frontal with obscured genitals, I think it is better if the lead image have obscured genitals because a lot of people in societies feel uncomfortable with the male figure. --Ernne (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
As I said in the sandbox, I think a clothed figure is more proper because most men in the world don't go around fully naked. If images are to be representative of an average member, they should reflect that on average, men wear clothes. While the biology of men is part of the page, the page is mostly about the cultural aspects of being a man. The biology section is already illustrated by our best, most tasteful, nude anatomical diagram. As for what kind of clothes, I'm not very picky; I think we'll be constrained by what high quality full length images we have. I'd lean for something modern and simple: shirt and pants of some kind. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓02:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
the lead photo of the article and all the photos of men in this article should be men in modern clothing, pants with shirts or pants with jackets or suits --Ernne (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with a full frontal lead photo of a man without obscured genitals but Wikipedia is visited by people of all ages so the genitals of the man should be obscured I think a lot of people think Wikipedia is kind of family friendly at least in articles not about sex education --Ernne (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
No, a full frontal nude should NOT be the lead picture. This isn't Anotomy of man 101, it's Man. The picture should represent Man in his usual, neutral, and natural state. And most men don't walk around nude as a matter of course. The picture should be casual and not be job specific (not fireman, cop uniform, for example) or religious. While I'm sure there's a better picture than the current one, I think it does a good job at being neutral. Yes, wikipedia is not censored (a good thing) but on the same token, gratuitous nudity goes beyond "not being censored". And having a full nude as the lead pic is gratuitous and unnecessary nudity for this article. There is already a nude picture in the article and if one really wants to see more nude pics, then go to commons and if that doesn't satisfy, then there's always pornhub. Masterhatch (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say it should be the lead image I also support a lead clothed image for the article of the man no Wikipedian would accept gratuitous nudity in articles this is not Netflix I just meant if Wikipedians decided by vote to replace the lead image with new image similar to the image of the East Asian man it should be obscured to be less gratuitous since there is secondary unobscured image of the naked Asian man I said this to vote for the new image to be less gratuitous Wikipedia is website for all people the image should be clothed but if the new lead image is going to be similar to the naked East Asian man it should be obscured because the article is not about anatomy --Ernne (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry if there was confusion with my comment. It wasn't a reply specically to you or anyone else. It is just my assertion that a full nude shouldn't be the lead pic. Masterhatch (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Are photos of silhouettes acceptable? a lead photo of silhouette would make the article race neutral and more neutral appearance representative of all men ( excluding weight + height) --Ernne (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
IMO, no. A silhouette doesn't tell the reader much about the subject of the article. The lead image serves two purposes: it tells the reader that they're at the right page, and, for topics such as this, it depicts a typical example. Horse shows a picture of a typical horse, Barn shows a picture of a typical barn, etc. Not all horses or all barns look like that, but it shows pictures of a typical example of the article subject. No reason this article shouldn't do the same. Levivich (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I would oppose any image that even might be considered not safe for school/work. Yes, Wikipedia isn't censored but we should try to err on the side of safe for work when discussing topics that a typical person might expect to be safe for work and when such a picture has little informational value with respect to the topic. Springee (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Who decides what's not suitable for school/work? I'm a teacher, and have no problem with students seeing pictures of nude people. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can offer you an straight forward answer but I would suggest using some common sense here. In school a nude picture in a specific context may be OK but in a very general context it would be an issue. In a corporate environment a nude picture of a person is something that could be seen as offensive. Could sharing the main picture of this article with people at work be considered creating an uncomfortable, sexual environment? With the current picture, no (this is not supporting the current picture). With the male shown in the female-male image above, yes. Again, err on the side of caution unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. Springee (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I undone one of the links (he is other man not one of these men) the photo had flip flops because most men don't wear flip flops in public and flip flops are not acceptable in most public places --Ernne (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
You just ruled out most Australian men as candidates for the pic in this article. And no doubt a lot from other warm countries too. HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
That's not necessary. I just get sick of absolute statements about what's normal from people (not just you) who don't know what's normal all round the world.
My favorite image is the man in leather jacket, dark pants with sunglasses it is cool, fashionable and masculine image and it is a complete body image does any agree with me that it should be the lead image? you asked for photo that is not upper body photo --Ernne (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why does Levivich think white person not suitable for lead image? does he want Wikipedia to be like Gemini AI? does he want the photo of female Indian pope from Gemini in the article of Pope Francis does he want photos of Asian female soldier from Gemini AI, in the article about Nazi army ? I'm not white but this some kind of discrimination against white people --Ernne (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Prioritizing race over image quality would ruin Wikipedia, if we put an image of a person just because the person is not white then Wikipedia failed as an encyclopedia. --Ernne (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry Mr.Levivich if there was an attack in my comment it was unintentional. It wasn't personal attack directed at you or anyone else. it was reply to people who prioritize race over quality/content which destroyed Gemini AI --Ernne (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
There are problems with this image beyond the skin color: it's from 1990 and shows period clothing, it's not particularly high quality (largely because it was taken on film from 1990, and I'm guessing it's a scanned print), the sunglasses obscure the man's face, the jacket obscures the man's body, he's got blonde hair (which isn't typical or common hair color)... and then there's the fact that his skin color is not typical for a man. For "what's wrong with using a white person?", see above, where I and others have already addressed this, as well as the previous rounds of discussion where this was discussed further. Levivich (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
"Fashionable" must never be a factor in deciding what image we use. It is obviously completely subjective. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
If I HAD to choose an image, though, it’d be something actually significant to human history like this
Why does this conversation need to exist? Wikipedia is not used by aliens, everyone knows what a man looks like. The top illustration is purely decorative and has no realistic educational value so debating whether these hypothetical alien readers would be benefited more by a naked man or a white man is just silly. Dronebogus (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree. For a while we had this picture [4] (Meichelangelo's painting of Adam) which was both abstract yet specific. I think the DaVinci drawing would also be a good one. Another alternative could be the images from Pioneer 10 [5]. Springee (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Maybe not an ideal choice. While it's part of a magnificent painting, that image is one used to mock fundamentalists, because Adam has a navel. HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I have no problems with the status quo lead image, but some people here do. IMO, it would be a good idea to hold a lead image RfC so that there's consensus to refer back to if the topic comes up again in the future (which I don't doubt it will). Above are some of the images that have been mentioned in this discussion. Feel free to suggest more. My preference would be to narrow the options down to 10 and for the RfC, have editors rank them (similar to how it was done at the Woman lead image RfC). Some1 (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I don’t support an RfC because “some people” will never be happy and in three years somebody else will come along and say “I don’t like it”. The best solution would be including all the above images in a montage, but apparently we can’t do that anymore, so the second best solution would be to stop pretending there’s a problem here. Once again, the lead image is purely decorative and serves no practical purpose because literally everyone is familiar with the subject. The reason it’s there is because people expect a lead image where one is available and logical. Dronebogus (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Dronebogus in not supporting an RfC, as this could be a never-ending journey of personal opinions. The present image is fine, covers the subject adequately, and its use as a stand-alone image has been pretty much uncontroversial. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
just because a photo was shown in the news in the past doesn't mean it is the best photo or it is award winning it just means someone from the news read the wiki article --Ernne (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Agree. The currently lede image is perfectly acceptable and an RfC is not needed at this time. Editors with strong feelings about image policy and diversity should focus their efforts on improving the thousands of other articles that badly need it, rather than running through the process of everyone screaming at once why their personal favorite drawing/photograph/schematic/3D model/multi-media webcomic of a man is the best and most representative. Although it is not a basis on which we should make decisions, the attention such a discussion would naturally draw (e.g. "Wokepedia Wants to Replace Photo of Strong Masculine Brown Man with Disabled White Trans Man, Meatpuppets Needed") are not necessary. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I absolutely support a montage. I don't like the current image. I think it's because it's a photo with that follow. Alternatively, the paintings/drawings are conceptual people rather than a specific person. I would also say that if the image is notable because it was used here then it probably should be changed. Again this is meant to be a generalized picture. As for an individual image out of the ones presented, I don't care for C-F either. They seem to period specific or non-illustrative. J isn't a good choice as it wouldn't be considered safe for work in many places. Springee (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
A montage is no less decorative or more useful than a single image, unless the montage showcases the diversity of men (or at least tries to). See the 8-image montage to the right (which includes the current status quo image, an elderly man, a short man, an obese man, a trans man, a man in a wheelchair, and two drawings); I wouldn't oppose that montage, for example. Some1 (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
A montage is terrible for people with les than perfect eyesight, and smaller screens. We must not go there. HiLo48 (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Agree. It's extremely noisy and visually distracting for the lede. Attempting to span every plausible social axis of race/age/disability within a single montage begets people asking to add a ninth image (or else Wikipedia is prejudiced against X minority) and then a tenth. It is preferable that we include a diversity of men within the article body. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I support the montage, dwarf men are dehumanized and seen as half men and almost the same thing with men in wheelchairs --Ernne (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I think we should get a super masculine man like this picture (below the collage). He's bald, has large muscles, facial hair, tattoos, and is wearing a traditionally masculine article of clothing. EvergreenFir(talk)15:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
While this hypothetical half-serious discussion is still getting way out of hand I’ll just say yeah, why not use Buck Angel as the main image. Purely because it’s more entertaining than some rando. Dronebogus (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose change, I don't see anything wrong with the current image. The vast majority of men the vast majority of the time are clothed, so the picture is true-to-life. And MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY is against collages for "large human populations", not just ethnic groups. (Maybe we need a MOS:NOGENDERGALLERIES shortcut with how often this comes up...) Lastly, the photo we have is perfectly good at representing the topic. Crossroads-talk-22:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Please don't vote yet y'all. This is just trying to come up with a suitable list to take to an RfC. Comments should either be offering new images, or suggesting why an existing image is fundamentally unsuitable for an RfC. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓22:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Narrowing down ain't bad. Some additional candidates: Another crossed arm fellow - might be too handsome but shows more body than image A and seems a bit less touched up.
Oppose change I feel that pretty much all of the images are subjective given the broad nature of "man", but the current one is well lit, high quality, and has good contrast, so I don’t really see a good reason for changing it. I also think that going to an RfC is far too time consuming and not worth it due to the inherent subjectivity of the topic, but should it go to that point, I think the images listed by Some1 are fine, but perhaps use a cropped version of the Pioneer one. Dantus21 (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Introduction is strange
Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Why the bit about men being violent in the introduction?
Why is gender role so negative?
Men have historically been the workers, providing financial support, housing, food. They did MOST jobs, so obviously did the dangerous ones. Why not mention that men are bigger in general and hence better at the physical dangerous jobs? EmeraldGander1999 (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
"Throughout human history, traditional gender roles have often defined and limited men's activities and opportunities. Men often face conscription into military service or are directed into professions with high mortality rates. Many religious doctrines stipulate certain rules for men, such as religious circumcision. Men are over-represented as both perpetrators and victims of violence."
I don’t see any problems here either. There is no evidence that men are somehow inherently better at dangerous labor, being in more jobs in general doesn’t make being the only ones in dangerous jobs less notable, and treating the side effects of traditional gender roles for men in a neutral manner is not being overly negative. Dronebogus (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
A (current image/status quo)
C - A man wearing sunglasses
D - A man sitting
E - A man holding a phone
![F - A man crossing his arms (as suggested by LegalSmeagolian[1])](//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Tirzo_Martha.jpg/216px-Tirzo_Martha.jpg)
F - A man crossing his arms (as suggested by LegalSmeagolian[1])
G - Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam
H - Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man
I - Pioneer plaque's drawing of a human man
J - A nude man![K - Buck Angel (as suggested by Evergreenfir[2])](//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Buck_Angel_Headshot.jpg/367px-Buck_Angel_Headshot.jpg)
K - Buck Angel (as suggested by Evergreenfir[2]).jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.png)
![F - A man crossing his arms (as suggested by LegalSmeagolian[1])](/wiki/File:Tirzo_Martha.jpg)
![K - Buck Angel (as suggested by Evergreenfir[2])](/wiki/File:Buck_Angel_Headshot.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Man/sandbox#/media/File:Michelangelo,_Creation_of_Adam_03.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_10#/media/File:Pioneer10-plaque.jpg){kind=link}