At some point I said I liked the idea of collapsing the images, but after reading the discussion I changed my mind, specifically if we can provide drawings or any possibility of non-offensive images to replace any offensive ones. Is there any term or sense that absolutely needs an offensive image rather than a drawing? Case in point: in 2011 I chose the current image of sexual intercourse, that depicts fish copulating and is my idea of a tasteful illustration. Normal explicit porn with humans would most likely be the first option one would think for illustrating the term, but let's assume it would be offensive therefore collapsible, then wouldn't it be better having just the image with fish that everyone can see immediately? Or do people really need to see a naked couple having sex in order to fully understand the term?
If we expect people to click somewhere to see a collapsed naked dong at penis, (or graphic pictures of defecation, or beheading but I don't recall the last one being mentioned), we might as well just leave the Commons box in the entry. It takes 1 click either to see the collapsed image at Wiktionary or to see the list of images at Commons, so the effort it takes is exactly the same. (though maybe there are more complicated problems to discuss, such as page-loading time or whatever) --Daniel14:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Carrero: But I'm sure there are entries, like those for sex positions, where a drawing that adequately depicted the term would necessarily be as obscene as a photograph. But how would specifically change the wording to explicitly acknowledge this possibility? (After all, the vote leaves each individual image's fate up to consensus.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds22:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
