Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan and Commons-tan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2024 at 15:28:51 (UTC)

OriginalWikipe-tan and Commons-tan sitting on a bench in a park, posed in a romantic context.
Reason
A rather masterful illustration of a "fictional relationship that causes controversy", a concept somewhat difficult to illustrate through CC! My friend drew this image on my suggestion for the Shipping discourse article.
Articles in which this image appears
Shipping discourse
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle
Creator
Honemura (Commons user)
  • Support as nominator Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm torn. On the oppose end, Wikipe-tan and Commons-tan are not prominent figures in the shipping community, and being abstract idealizations of these projects, they don't have set ages that illustrate the age gap in a meaningful fashion. On the support end, we're not going to get free images of the copyrighted characters that dominate the shipping community, and frankly I love the Renoir vibes. This is a useful image... I'm just not sure that it meets the FP threshold.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1. Is of a high technical standard." In terms of portraiture, this shows well-developed skill, but it's very low contrast in places. I downloaded a copy and grayscaled it; it doesn't read well at all that way. Ambiguous.
  • "2. Is of high resolution." Yes.
  • "3. Is among Wikipedia's best work." That's broad, but "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more" is better. I guess this might. The most I can say is that it doesn't look like the other images I've seen cycle through Today's Featured Picture.
  • "4. Has a free license." Yes.
  • "5. Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article." I'm doubtful of this; if anything, I think you need to read the article to understand what the picture is showing.
  • "6. Is verifiable." No; using Wikipedia's own mascots to illustrate this concept is, if not original research, then at least an aspect that makes the work harder to understand than it otherwise would be. Wikipedia is kind of in a bind on this; an image showing two copyrighted characters the public is familiar with would showcase the concept better but wouldn't be free use.
  • "7. Has a descriptive, informative and complete file description in English." While the current description could be more detailed, I think it's sufficient.
  • "8. Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation." The image is natively digital; I don't think this applies.
By my count, this picture passes on points 2, 4 and 7; is marginal on points 1 and 3; fails points 5 and 6; and point 8 doesn't apply. I have to say oppose; this is a well-made image, but the concept it's trying to illustrate is complex and innately tied to the world of copyright in ways that are hard to work around. I don't think it's FP quality. Moonreach (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]