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

Wikipe-tan and Commons-tan

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2024 at 15:28:51 (UTC)

Original – Wikipe-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]

Comment – Perhaps it is a personal failure with recognizing emotion in art, but I could not discern that this was meant to be a romantic context without the caption. Even so, I'm not going to vote yes or no on this one. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, this image deserves a "most contested FP nomination" of the year. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User-generated art tends to get controversial. The lead image at yaoi was similar, over a decade back (and the Commons nom was also contentious) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it was added to the article today... --Janke | Talk 18:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Beyond the ken of most Eng.-lang. readers. – Sca (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's a beautiful art piece IMO and the image is educationally useful. I'm not sure that I agree with the argument about it being "beyond the ken" of readers, since Wikipedia exists to help people learn and understand subjects they may have had no prior understanding of. FP has also featured technical and scientific charts and diagrams, which I imagine are at least a little difficult for average readers to understand without further reading. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe it's somewhat using Japanese artistic tropes to dshow the relationship, which suits the characters. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 16:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This doesn't seem to illustrate the concept well given that it appears to be a fan fiction thing, and I don't think that anyone is writing fan fiction about thse obscure representations of Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Nick-D (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Would it help if I did?

Wikipe-tan looked up at Commons-tan, blushing slightly as they sat on the bench. They had worked together in their efforts to protect knowledge for so long, but Wikipe-tan was more of an author, and Commons-tan more of an artist, and their endeavours seemed so different. They were separate in their endeavours, and yet.... they collaborated constantly. As she looked up at Commons-tan, it felt like there was... more there between them. Commons-tan reached over, unsaid words hung in the air, and Wikipe-tan leaned closer, looking down to the hand in her lap, which held a gift... the perfect image for one of her 6.8 million articles from Commons-tan's 108 mllion files. She would treasure it forever, (or at least until the next edit war waged within her, and replaced it with one that had randomly been turned black and white, but that's a conflict for a later chapter). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 21:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now someone has written romantic fanfiction about them. Proving Nick-D a horrible liar who should be ashamed of himself. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 22:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do note where that linked text goes. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 00:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sure will ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dangit, that made me laugh. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 11:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the image of a fictional relationship that causes controversy has itself caused controversy. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 16:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with NickD. This is not a real-world example. MER-C 18:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's beautiful art and it fits the article well; I find the opposes somewhat unreasonable, given that the point of the image is to help you understand the subject of the article, and the idea of fanfiction is that it is both art and can sometimes include art—I would consider the work to be that. If the art can be considered a work of fanfiction, I think it fits, and the notion that a character needs to be popular to have works based on it is rather unreasonable, and the notion that the example needs to be "real-world" is even more unreasonable given that it's quite literally an article about fictitious relationships. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per my arguments above. EV is minimal when the characters are not commonly shipped (or even commonly the subject of fan fiction), as it does not represent the general landscape of the subject (not that a landscape where Barry Benson has multiple fan fictions, and "Garfield Effect" exists, can be easily summarized in one image) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too in-universe to be easily understood or representative. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nick and Chris. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused by this one, and decided to go through the criteria list to do things by the book.

"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]

Comment: – ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The drawing itself are very well done in my opinion however i don't think it suits well with the Wikipedia article (it does help me imagining it but doesn't made it easier to understand). What about Picture of the day on Wikimedia Commons? Stvk Công Cuối (VN) (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]