Could it be a book about the Great Wall of China?
Not according to post #57.
Wikipedia is more than an encylopedia. It is a community, and there are lots of places inside where the really heavy-duty Wikipedians discuss various topics of the look and feel of the site. I’ve rarely gone into those places, so I don’t know how to navigate them well., but surely this must have been discussed by them internally.
Can someone either give us a link to those discussions, or tell them about our views?
I believe it’s a T for Toyota.
Are you sure it isn’t the Angkor Wat? :dubious:
I still see a pony.
Yes.
Please point it out to me, because I don’t get it.
I’ve done a search before, but it’s not easy to find something. The little that may be there about the image itself is drowned out by loads of technical discussion on the Wikimedia software using the image.
Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) looks like the place to start an inquiry. (it’s not the most in-depth forum itself, but with a broad reach, and we’re most likely to get attention there and tickle someone’s interest to find out more)
Short answer: No
Long answer: No, but I’ll let you know later. Seriously, the politics on this site are ridiculous. Why do you care anyway? It’t not like anyone really takes it seriously anyway; why rely on a website that anyone can edit more than a website that one person edits?
This is really interesting. That so many people have not seen it to be a book.
To me it is patently obvious that it is a book - without needing to look at the image file. Funny how different people’s perception is.
Unfortunately, “looks like” is not the same thing as “is”.
I think you think too much. 
You know, just yesterday morning, I was watching a TV program that said sometimes “slowly developing persons” had to be shown “obvious” pictures, such as the vase/2 faces before they saw the real picture.
–>-
/
–<-
So now you’re saying that I’m a “slow developing person”?
I believe if you check with imdb.com you’ll find that I was getting Oscar nominations before you were born.
I could respond in kind, but I like that advice above:
But you DO see now that it is a book, right? 
Thank you! I’d given up on seeing the book. I can see it clearly in the other picture as well.
-Lil
With all due respect, what you are suggesting is somewhat akin to asking us to search for the thread where all the Dopers discussed where the photograph of that amazing blue sky that forms the majority of the background of the Straight Dope logo was taken.
Or, taking a trip in the Way Back Machine, hoping that scientists at NASA had engaged in serious discussions of the lunar civilizations you recently discovered by looking at jpegs from the Apollo missions on your monitor with a magnifying glass.
It’s a photo of a book. Most likely a stock photo bought for $25 and picked out of a 3-ring binder labeled “Photographs of Books, $25 each” in black sharpie. I would print out a color glossy and mark it up with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back explaining what it all means for you but (1) the original is black and white so color prints seem a bit extravagant and (2) I fear that the judge would walk in with a seeing eye dog and all my effort would be for naught.
In related news, does anybody else think it’s weird that the West Virginia State Quarter has a picture of the Paderno Bridge even though the bridge itself is in Italy? Perhaps we should ask Robert Byrd what he thinks. I’m sure he or his staff has discussed this important matter.
I don’t see a quarter, it looks like a fish to me.
CMC +fnord!
