This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AerobicFox (talk | contribs) at 19:57, 11 December 2010 (→Ecchi). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:57, 11 December 2010 by AerobicFox (talk | contribs) (→Ecchi)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Ecchi
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2010 at 04:50:59 (UTC)
- Reason
- Its a good image. Its featured on Commons,German,Turkish,Spanish wikipedias, Its a quality image and Valued image on commons and was a finalist for picture of the year for 2008. High EV as only image in article. Also we dont have an anime FPs(just saying)
- Articles in which this image appears
- Ecchi
- FP category for this image
- Misplaced Pages:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Drawings
- Creator
- Niabot
- Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support it is great that this is in SVG. Quality is amongst the best! Since anime is an important part of modern culture, I think that it is important to have at least one anime FP. Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's really not a valid argument. We should not be featuring things just because we consider the subject matter important. J Milburn (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Let me clarify: this image, of high technical standard and resolution, is among Misplaced Pages's best work for this subject matter. It also fulfills all of the featured picture criteria. And yes, we should be featuring things for important subject matters, just as how we strive to have a featured picture for each notable species, each chemical element, and so forth. Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's really not a valid argument. We should not be featuring things just because we consider the subject matter important. J Milburn (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose, totally not getting this. The article in which the image is used doesn't talk about manga/anime at all, and the caption is completely unenlightening. What on Earth is this actually doing there? J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ecchi in amine/manga(and in this case Hentai) means the character is erotic looking like seen in image. Spongie555 (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- There's absolutely nothing about that in the article, which is about a word, not a genre of manga. J Milburn (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- The image is showing what an ecchi anime character looks like and what clothes it would wear. Spongie555 (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's nice. There's nothing about any of this in the article. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is an image representation of the term by making an Illustration of the term in anime form. It helps the reader visualize the meaning of the term Ecchi. Spongie555 (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ecchi is a term that in Japanese language refers to nearly anything that can be considered perverted etc. On the other hand its well known as a genre of anime and manga, which play with this aspect. Don't know why the article does not mention anything about mana or anime, since in "western world" it usually only refers to this kind of illustrations, manga and anime. Definitely a shortcoming of the article.
- Robin E. Brenner: Understanding Manga and Anime. Libraries Unlimited, 2007, ISBN 1591583322, S. 295.
- An alternate term for hentai, the word comes from the English letter “h.” Ecchi is somewhat gentler than hentai or ero content, usually indicating rampant fan service rather than truly explicit content.
- Frederik L. Schodt: Dreamland Japan: Writings on Modern Manga. Stone Bridge Press, 2002, ISBN 188065623X, S. 208ff. (Hiroko Mizoguchi (溝口 比呂子) is named by her artist name Miruku Morizono).
- They reject the more adult (as in pornographic) anime, known in Japanese as hentai or ecchi.
- --Niabot (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ok- then there is a problem with the article, fix it. We can't say "support, should have EV, but doesn't". If there was a sourced section on the term as a genre of anime/manga, and this clearly illustrated the main features, then the EV would be much more clear. J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Done it as good as i currently could. Someone may correct my spelling errors. Sure i made a lot of them. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, it is now clear why an image such as this may belong in the article, but I am afraid I am not completely convinced. We essentially have a picture of a scantily-clad anime girl in an article that discusses, in passing, the genre "ecchi", basically saying that ecchi is less explicit hentai. The EV really isn't blowing me away here, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- You should be able to see that the term ecchi or after heburn etchi does have two different meanings. On the one hand it is a usual Japanese word to state that something is seen or stated as perverted. Even if the direct translation of "hentai" and "ecchi" is equal in words, ecchi is treated as less harmfull. Comparable to the german words "Perversling" and "Perverser" (last one has a strong negative meaning, first is undecided).
- On the other hand we have the genre that is also known beyond japan and which is usually meant when a German, Britain or American "guy" talks about this word (clearly, the writing in romanji only refers to the genre, since in Japanese its written in Katakana or short "H"). The only thing i was a little confused about are the sources that never got into any detail, even it is very well known aspect of manga and anime. Maybe it is known so good, that nobody feels the need to go into further detail. A simple image search on google for "ecchi" should make it absolutly clear, but as usual it would not count to say "the earth is a sphere and not a circle", as long someone writes it into a book, even if it is obvious to everyone that walked from India to America to India following only one direction. Somehow this is sad. --Niabot (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, it is now clear why an image such as this may belong in the article, but I am afraid I am not completely convinced. We essentially have a picture of a scantily-clad anime girl in an article that discusses, in passing, the genre "ecchi", basically saying that ecchi is less explicit hentai. The EV really isn't blowing me away here, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Done it as good as i currently could. Someone may correct my spelling errors. Sure i made a lot of them. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ok- then there is a problem with the article, fix it. We can't say "support, should have EV, but doesn't". If there was a sourced section on the term as a genre of anime/manga, and this clearly illustrated the main features, then the EV would be much more clear. J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's nice. There's nothing about any of this in the article. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- The image is showing what an ecchi anime character looks like and what clothes it would wear. Spongie555 (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- There's absolutely nothing about that in the article, which is about a word, not a genre of manga. J Milburn (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: See , are we sure about the copyright status on this?--RDBury (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- The site says(under the image card there is a little info) it took the image from wikipedia since it's under public domain to make the card. The image was created by the wikipedian that drew it. Spongie555 (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Since they ripped me off. As you can clearly see, the page provides a crop of this image, missing any licensing tag and so on. If you are not confident about it, look at the description and version history. (Also your mentioned page state the GFDL and CC as license in the description, even if it's missing my name) --Niabot (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Low EV per above; Composition is not very compelling (why is it tilted sideways?); Also, not suitable for featuring on the Main Page. Kaldari (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Insert "Why tilted": Its called the Dutch angle. If you think it is only used like described in the article, have a look at some pictures: --Niabot (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- May you enlight me and tell me: "Why?" --Niabot (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's NSFW and would likely cause offense to many. Kaldari (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Are you sure about that? In german wikipedia we had even futanari on the mainpage and it caused no trouble at all. The only interesting aspect was, that more then one fifth of the people also viewed the image in greater resolution. Any newspaper shows the same level of revealing pictures as this one. Maybe i see it wrong, but i think you exaggerate to much. --Niabot (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- "no trouble at all"? I guess you're not on OTRS. Even Jimmy Wales himself objected to it. Kaldari (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- A good friend of mine Don-kun works for the german OTRS and he was interested how much trouble it would make. The nearly unsatisfying (regarding expectations) result where 0 mails related to this topic. Instead we had some normal discussion posts, but really nothing against it. Instead some people praised the article or made some constructive comments. --Niabot (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- "no trouble at all"? I guess you're not on OTRS. Even Jimmy Wales himself objected to it. Kaldari (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Are you sure about that? In german wikipedia we had even futanari on the mainpage and it caused no trouble at all. The only interesting aspect was, that more then one fifth of the people also viewed the image in greater resolution. Any newspaper shows the same level of revealing pictures as this one. Maybe i see it wrong, but i think you exaggerate to much. --Niabot (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's NSFW and would likely cause offense to many. Kaldari (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Also it doesn't have to be on the Main page like the other imges, it can be like the other images in Misplaced Pages:Picture of the day/Unused which where skipped for the main page but still a FP. Spongie555 (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Who decides that? If they could comment here, it would be helpful. Kaldari (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- I asked the main contributor from POTD about it and I asked them if they could comment here about it. Spongie555 (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that this does not belong on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Whether or not this is Main Page–worthy should have no bearing on the FP promotion process. howcheng {chat} 17:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, I strongly agree, though I think clarifying in this case that it is not going on the main page would be helpful for both "sides". J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- This one is a different case than our other "sensitive" images -- in all the other cases, it was because of something inherent to the image itself. Here, we have an image that's not particularly offensive or anything in and of itself, but it's the content of the associated article that raises concerns. If this passes, I'm leaning towards allowing it, because the idea of omitting those other images is to avoid shoving graphic pictures into the faces of sensitive viewers (those types of complaints were pretty common before I started skipping them -- you should've seen it when File:Desinsertion du muscle CO.jpg was POTD). Nobody is forcing the reader to go and read the associated article, however. howcheng {chat} 18:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- So I guess the fact that I would consider it inappropriate for the Main Page isn't enough of a complaint? How many complaints do you need? If you're leaning towards featuring it on the Main Page, then I am definitely opposing the promotion. Regarding the statement that this should have no bearing on the FP promotion process, I was told that it was unnecessary to try amending the FPC criteria to exclude pornography since pornographic featured pictures would never be used on the Main Page. If this is incorrect, I will revive my efforts to amend the featured picture criteria to take Main Page appropriateness into consideration. Kaldari (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- You seam not know the difference between erotic art and pornography. I just shacked my head and said to myself some words, that i better keep to myself. --Niabot (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever you want to call it, it's NSFW and it's not appropriate for the Main Page. Kaldari (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Luckily this is only your opinion and NSFW is clearly something else. --Niabot (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- The "line in the sand" varies for each image. The more people that complain about a certain image, the less likely it will appear on the Main Page. IMHO at this time, the only one to raise a serious objection is yourself, whereas J Milburn's doesn't seem to be nearly as vehement. howcheng {chat} 23:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- If we're voting, I'm opposed to it appearing on the MP. We have a lot of worthy images- this one is undoubtedly sexual, and perhaps wouldn't cast Misplaced Pages in the best light. The subject matter is not biological, it's not fine art, it's, as far as I can understand, cartoon porn with cartoon clothes. I'm hardly prudish (though I admit I know nothing about anime/hentai/manga/whatever) but that does not strike me as appropriate subject matter for the front page of an encyclopedia. Note that this is unrelated to the reasons I have opposed the promotion to FP- I am very much with you on the POTD/FP divide. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- In this case, i ask you why exactly you opposed the picture. The article mentions both meanings of the word (in Japanese slang and as a genre, which is usually meant outside Japan). That can't really be the issue to oppose. Is it anything else, or could you explain your doubts? (not regarding the "MP problem") --Niabot (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- J Milburn, you mentioned that "it's not fine art". However, fine art "describes an art form developed primarily for aesthetics and/or concept rather than practical application" and, inasmuch as there is no practical application for this image and that the emphasis on aesthetics is clear (at least to the vast population who can appreciate this art style), it is certain, of course, that it is a specimen of fine art. Much as how classical European art featuring nudity are considered art, so too should this picture. Also, external sources agree that anime is fine art . Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- If we're voting, I'm opposed to it appearing on the MP. We have a lot of worthy images- this one is undoubtedly sexual, and perhaps wouldn't cast Misplaced Pages in the best light. The subject matter is not biological, it's not fine art, it's, as far as I can understand, cartoon porn with cartoon clothes. I'm hardly prudish (though I admit I know nothing about anime/hentai/manga/whatever) but that does not strike me as appropriate subject matter for the front page of an encyclopedia. Note that this is unrelated to the reasons I have opposed the promotion to FP- I am very much with you on the POTD/FP divide. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever you want to call it, it's NSFW and it's not appropriate for the Main Page. Kaldari (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- You seam not know the difference between erotic art and pornography. I just shacked my head and said to myself some words, that i better keep to myself. --Niabot (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- So I guess the fact that I would consider it inappropriate for the Main Page isn't enough of a complaint? How many complaints do you need? If you're leaning towards featuring it on the Main Page, then I am definitely opposing the promotion. Regarding the statement that this should have no bearing on the FP promotion process, I was told that it was unnecessary to try amending the FPC criteria to exclude pornography since pornographic featured pictures would never be used on the Main Page. If this is incorrect, I will revive my efforts to amend the featured picture criteria to take Main Page appropriateness into consideration. Kaldari (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- This one is a different case than our other "sensitive" images -- in all the other cases, it was because of something inherent to the image itself. Here, we have an image that's not particularly offensive or anything in and of itself, but it's the content of the associated article that raises concerns. If this passes, I'm leaning towards allowing it, because the idea of omitting those other images is to avoid shoving graphic pictures into the faces of sensitive viewers (those types of complaints were pretty common before I started skipping them -- you should've seen it when File:Desinsertion du muscle CO.jpg was POTD). Nobody is forcing the reader to go and read the associated article, however. howcheng {chat} 18:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, I strongly agree, though I think clarifying in this case that it is not going on the main page would be helpful for both "sides". J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Whether or not this is Main Page–worthy should have no bearing on the FP promotion process. howcheng {chat} 17:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that this does not belong on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- I asked the main contributor from POTD about it and I asked them if they could comment here about it. Spongie555 (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Who decides that? If they could comment here, it would be helpful. Kaldari (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support This is a good type specimen for ecchi IMO. She is very hot for a cartoon chick, and she looks naughty. 184.57.79.178 (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please note that this user has no edits to Misplaced Pages other than FPC votes (thus it has a high probability of being a sockpuppet vote). Kaldari (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- 184, regardless of whether you actually are a sockpuppet, as a rule FPC generally discards the votes of anonymous users. Perhaps you would consided creating an account? J Milburn (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please note that this user has no edits to Misplaced Pages other than FPC votes (thus it has a high probability of being a sockpuppet vote). Kaldari (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Support Disclosure: anime fanatic, can't pass the image by, can't oppose it either. Also, why is it so hard to find good images like this one on site? ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 06:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Question -- Why is this image not in Anime and Manga? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Don't know. Maybe it suites Ecchi better then this terms. Manga are usually in Graytones with patterns and not all images are about the ecchi theme, which could be misleading, if it's the only example. --Niabot (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per J Milb. --Extra 999 (Contact + contribs) 12:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Its now fixed in the article and cites are given (in the past the article mentioned it right, somehow the content got deleted, even it was absolutely right). --Niabot (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Support as per Purpy Pupple and TomStar81. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support per american-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- support well done Alofok (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. The purpose of Misplaced Pages being to support learning by more people of more subjects and since we already know that a woman can be made to be semi-naked and possibly chosen or fashioned to be under the age of consent, this picture adds nothing to what we know. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Do they know the two different meanings of ecchi in Japanese language and as a genre? I doubt that. --Niabot (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. The candidate is the picture. The caption is only secondary, and your point isn't in the caption at all. And I read the article before opposing. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Whith the same irrational argument you could oppose any picture that is currently listed and has no description in itself. Today we have a duck on the mainpage, which is just an ordinary picture of duck. The colors may be diffrent, but what is the learning effect that you speak about, if you ignore the description? --Niabot (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- The point you raised isn't in the caption so the point you raised is irrelevant. What the picture tells us about females is really telling us something about men who control them, and is not anything new. So the picture and its caption are not giving us new information, which is the value of an encyclopedia. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, i asume a picture of a duck on a lake tells us something new, while you think that men control women. Also that a encycolopedia should tell new stories and shall not repeat/reflect common knowledge. That is realy something new. You should read the basic rules of this project again. Ten times maybe... --Niabot (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- The duck picture with its caption is more informative than is this picture with its caption. And, while this picture probably has utility for the ecchi article (I don't know enough about the art style to tell either way), it's already in the article, and so the key question here seems to be about whether it should be eligible for posting to the Main Page, where a less-informative picture-and-caption wouldn't make much sense. It does not meet the criterion of being "beautiful, stunning, impressive, or informative". More specific criteria, that " picture's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value" and that "a descriptive, informative and complete caption" is displayed, are not met. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC) (Corrected a link: 03:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC))
- Your point about it not meeting the "beautiful, stunning, impressive, or informative" appears to be biased towards your own inability to appreciate this art style, since I am sure that many other members will differ in opinion regarding that. Furthermore, an encyclopedic article or image about an art form or genre must, irrefragably, illustrate or show this art to the fullest extent possible; as such, I claim that it is impossible for it to emphasize the artistic value more than the encyclopedic value. Hence I do not see how this fails to meet the criterion that " picture's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value". Also, I sense that a main reason for your opposition is emotional -- that you feel that this image is a manifestation of "men's control over women". I can assure you that this is not so, for it is within the very culture of anime and manga to portray characters, both male and female, in sometimes provocative ways. Purpy Pupple (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- The duck picture with its caption is more informative than is this picture with its caption. And, while this picture probably has utility for the ecchi article (I don't know enough about the art style to tell either way), it's already in the article, and so the key question here seems to be about whether it should be eligible for posting to the Main Page, where a less-informative picture-and-caption wouldn't make much sense. It does not meet the criterion of being "beautiful, stunning, impressive, or informative". More specific criteria, that " picture's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value" and that "a descriptive, informative and complete caption" is displayed, are not met. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC) (Corrected a link: 03:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC))
- OK, i asume a picture of a duck on a lake tells us something new, while you think that men control women. Also that a encycolopedia should tell new stories and shall not repeat/reflect common knowledge. That is realy something new. You should read the basic rules of this project again. Ten times maybe... --Niabot (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- The point you raised isn't in the caption so the point you raised is irrelevant. What the picture tells us about females is really telling us something about men who control them, and is not anything new. So the picture and its caption are not giving us new information, which is the value of an encyclopedia. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Whith the same irrational argument you could oppose any picture that is currently listed and has no description in itself. Today we have a duck on the mainpage, which is just an ordinary picture of duck. The colors may be diffrent, but what is the learning effect that you speak about, if you ignore the description? --Niabot (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. The candidate is the picture. The caption is only secondary, and your point isn't in the caption at all. And I read the article before opposing. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- The appreciation in question is not in anime or manga but in the subject type, and, evidently, I do appreciate it for exactly what it's worth. And many agree. Calling the subject provocative is shifting blame onto the subject.
- Objectivity is unavailable for most of the criteria you cited, and subjectivity is therefore acceptable for those criteria.
- The article is already illustrated, but illustrating "to the fullest extent possible" would far exceed Wikimedia's server capacity, and so choosing is recommended. When choosing, encyclopedic value has to get priority over artistic value. So, if it has artistic value but not much encyclopedic value, choose another.
- Oppose On EV grounds, with a caption of "Drawing fitting some typical features" and being out-of-context at the top of the page when where it's relevant is further down. According to the text of the article I don't see how this image is relevant, probably what is relevant is beyond what can be shown on wikipedia. Also the comment about the "chicks with dicks" comic pictures being on the German website, I can just imagine if Howcheng put that image on en.wikipedia's main page. I kinda doubt he'd have admin access after Jimbo saw it. What goes on on another language wiki is NOT relevant to what goes on on en.wiki. As for what is offensive about the image, the suggestive sexuality of it is offensive to many people. This should NOT be on the main page. — raekyt 05:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ecchi as a genre is meant to be suggestive in a way, that it is up to the viewers imagination, what he likes to see. The article isn't written very well, wished it was as good as in the german wiki. The main theme of the article should be the genre, that this is what is usually meant by ecchi. At least by English readers.
- I know that i shouldn't compare the german with the english version since it was decided by clear voting in german wikipedia that any topic is valid as the article/picture of the day. (direct reaction after de:vulva was shown on the mainpage) --Niabot (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'd just like to point out that FPC and POTD are different issues. We can easily pass things here that won't become POTD (there are many examples). Noodle snacks (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- In this case, Howcheng has indicated that he would promote it as POTD if it passes, so the issue seems relevant to discussion, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hardly. If we take Howcheng's word as law in regards to PotD, and we think this would not make a suitable PotD, that would be a strong argument against promoting this as a FP. J Milburn (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- In this case, Howcheng has indicated that he would promote it as POTD if it passes, so the issue seems relevant to discussion, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'd just like to point out that FPC and POTD are different issues. We can easily pass things here that won't become POTD (there are many examples). Noodle snacks (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support 2000px version. Eye-catching depiction of encyclopedic subject. Twilightchill t 16:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support 2000px version. --Paddyez (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Poor composition and per J. Milburn. Spencer 01:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- The composition is in fact quite typical of this art style and has encyclopedic value in its own right. Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- About 10.000 Images in Manga/Anime-Style using this angle.
- TV-Tropes about the usage of Dutch Angle.
- Summary of a lecture hold by de:Martina Peters
- Daraufhin erklärte Martina Peters noch weiteres zu den Möglichkeiten mit dem Inhalt eines Panels zu arbeiten. Sei es durch einen „establishing shot“, der einem später die Hintergründe erspart, oder offene Panels ohne Gutter, die einem das Eintauchen in die Handlung erleichtern sollen und die Geschichte atmen lassen. Auch mit unterschiedlichen Perspektiven lässt sich gut arbeiten. Stichwortartig führte sie als Beispiele die „dutch angle“ und die „Froschperspektive“ an.
- Later on Martina Peters described further possibilities to work with panels. May it be through a "establishing shot", which allows to ignore backgrounds or open panels without gutter, what allows to easily immerse into the story and let it breath. Also it is good to work with different perspectives. In short she mentioned examples like "dutch angle" and the "low angle shot".
- --Niabot (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Support - for reasons as given above (& @ the commons discussions for same item). it's a good image, & we want to encourage artists to contribute more of them! Lx 121 (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Support per above --kaʁstn 21:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Support per above about wanting to encourage artists to contribute more.AerobicFox (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Has this discussion been advertised somewhere? Where are all these people coming from? J Milburn (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- I believe this is what you're looking for. (btw, how do I link to wikiCommons without an external link?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AerobicFox (talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting, but the main point (At least with my vote is) that this image hasn't a decent home on this wiki... It's sufficiently high enough on technical standards of quality imho for FP status, but it fails strictly on EV grounds. The article it in, imho, has only a tenuous link to the picture. The requirements for a picture to be featured on en.wiki is NOT the same as on commons. We don't promote to just encourage the author to make more. Any votes that are not taking the policies of this FP process into consideration probably shouldn't be counted. — raekyt 04:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Votes aren't counted anyways :P, just the reasoning behind them. Thanks for link.AerobicFox (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- They are on FPC.... please take the time to review the FPC policies and procedures if you wish to continue to contribute here. — raekyt 07:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- No... it doesn't... o_O
- Votes aren't counted anyways :P, just the reasoning behind them. Thanks for link.AerobicFox (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:POLL "Misplaced Pages has several processes to deal with such things as ... featured content (e.g. WP:FAC). These are sometimes wrongly assumed to be majority votes. Each of these processes is not decided based on headcount, but on the strength of the arguments presented."
- Misplaced Pages has never been about the majority rules or sheer headcount in deciding debates anywhere, so there is no point in trying to "disallow" votes. Such an act just produces ill will between the editors and doesn't promote the discussion. :(AerobicFox (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Let's put some facts together. At first we have more than 2/3 (excluding myself) that voted with support. Then we have the arguments:
- "great that this is in SVG. Quality is amongst the best!" As SVG it is resolution independent and always of high quality. Even if the current renderer of Misplaced Pages makes some mistakes since it is fast but bad. The file itself is valid SVG.
- "The article in which the image is used doesn't talk about manga/anime at all..." This oppose reason is no longer valid, since the article mentions both meanings in native and global context. It mentioned this facts in earlier article version but they got somehow deleted. Knowing this, since i used the English article as a reference for the german article a long time ago.
- ", are we sure about the copyright status on this?" We can, because we have the complete drawing history of this image, and the given page mentions the license and my name, even though it would be illegal to print this card as it is.
- "Composition is not very compelling (why is it tilted sideways?)" As i mentioned it is the dutch angle, which is fairly typical for such illustrations, but not enforced. It gives the author more room for the central element itself, since the diagonal is longer then any side of a rectangle.
- "Also, not suitable for featuring on the Main Page." That is an invalid reason for opposing, since featuring an image on the main page and featuring it in this instance is something totally different.
- "Whether or not this is Main Page–worthy should have no bearing on the FP promotion process." Thats what happend here. Most oppose are based on the decision that it does not belong on the main page, because we are stuck in prudery, and aren't able to look outside the border of hometown.
- "I guess you're not on OTRS. Even Jimmy Wales himself objected to it." The image was candidate for picture of the year and was a finalist. As far as i can remember we had no complaints about this image, even the voting was advertised at all major languages. And i absolutely don't know Jimbos opinion on this. Where can i read it?
- "The purpose of Misplaced Pages being to support learning by more people of more subjects and since we already know that a woman can be made to be semi-naked and possibly chosen or fashioned to be under the age of consent, this picture adds nothing to what we know." Never got this argument. If this is valid in any means, than FPC should be abolished, since we should represent known knowledge.
- " being out-of-context at the top of the page " No longer true, since it is also stated in the introduction, and if not: It could be easily moved to the right place.
- "Eye-catching depiction of encyclopedic subject" no comment
- "Disclosure: anime fanatic, can't pass the image by, can't oppose it either." no comment
- "This is a good type specimen for ecchi IMO. She is very hot for a cartoon chick, and she looks naughty." As stated in the article
- "it's a good image, & we want to encourage artists to contribute more of them!" no comment
- If i missed something essential argument, correct me please. --Niabot (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Do you honestly believe that's a fair assessment of the various arguments? One point I will make is that, as Howcheng has made clear that this would go on the main page, that if we take Howcheng's word on the matter as law, and we do not feel this is appropriate for the main page, then it would be perfectly reasonable to oppose. J Milburn (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- That means that you voted willingly for oppose, since you are prude, instead of voting on the value, executions,... of this image. Guess you don't need to tell me anymore. I heard enough to be sure how to think about your opinion. Have a good day and spend a little bit of happiness, instead making wrong accuses. --Niabot (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Erm... What? You appear not to have read my oppose, or read what I just wrote. I suppose I could assume there is a language barrier, but that doesn't stretch very far, and doesn't excuse everything. Drop it. J Milburn (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- To make clear what I was just saying; the word "prude" is often used rather derogatively, and is not a word that should be thrown about like that. Accusing other editors of being "prudes" is not appropriate. My oppose is based entirely on the EV question, though, no, I do not feel that this has a place on the main page (the thought didn't cross my mind until someone else raised the issue). My comment dated 13:12, 11 December 2010 was merely pointing out that opposing based on not wanting to see this on the main page could very well be a reasonable oppose, not me endorsing that opposition. I can see that the distinction may be hard to notice; please be more careful in future. J Milburn (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe a woman would like a career as an artist, or as a firefighter, lawyer, or chef. That's not prudery. That's within civil rights: opening opportunities and not stereotyping her into just sexual service. We already know about the latter. Use the opportunity here to post a picture and a caption to tell us something new or something we forgot but want a reminder of, that being the main point of an encyclopedia. I trust that clarifies what you said you didn't get. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nick, who was that in reply to? I don't understand what you are trying to say. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about the confusion. The reply is to Niabot (and anyone else interested), since he had quoted my words and said he didn't get it. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- What has the career of women to do with this picture? Actually we have many (japanese) women that draw this kind of art. Have a look at and . Also the depicted characters are usually free to do anything like that. *headshake* --Niabot (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Your new points aren't in the picture and caption and that's what the decision is based on. The portrayal is a problem because it adds nothing to Misplaced Pages's value as an encyclopedia, thus the relevance of the picture's content. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Why should it? The illustration is for the reason that an reader not familiar with the topic of manga and anime can have a good imagination what the meaning of ecchi is (graphically speaking). "Ecchi na no wa ikenai to omoimasu" Mahoro Andō --Niabot (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Your new points aren't in the picture and caption and that's what the decision is based on. The portrayal is a problem because it adds nothing to Misplaced Pages's value as an encyclopedia, thus the relevance of the picture's content. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- What has the career of women to do with this picture? Actually we have many (japanese) women that draw this kind of art. Have a look at and . Also the depicted characters are usually free to do anything like that. *headshake* --Niabot (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about the confusion. The reply is to Niabot (and anyone else interested), since he had quoted my words and said he didn't get it. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nick, who was that in reply to? I don't understand what you are trying to say. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe a woman would like a career as an artist, or as a firefighter, lawyer, or chef. That's not prudery. That's within civil rights: opening opportunities and not stereotyping her into just sexual service. We already know about the latter. Use the opportunity here to post a picture and a caption to tell us something new or something we forgot but want a reminder of, that being the main point of an encyclopedia. I trust that clarifies what you said you didn't get. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- To make clear what I was just saying; the word "prude" is often used rather derogatively, and is not a word that should be thrown about like that. Accusing other editors of being "prudes" is not appropriate. My oppose is based entirely on the EV question, though, no, I do not feel that this has a place on the main page (the thought didn't cross my mind until someone else raised the issue). My comment dated 13:12, 11 December 2010 was merely pointing out that opposing based on not wanting to see this on the main page could very well be a reasonable oppose, not me endorsing that opposition. I can see that the distinction may be hard to notice; please be more careful in future. J Milburn (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Erm... What? You appear not to have read my oppose, or read what I just wrote. I suppose I could assume there is a language barrier, but that doesn't stretch very far, and doesn't excuse everything. Drop it. J Milburn (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- That means that you voted willingly for oppose, since you are prude, instead of voting on the value, executions,... of this image. Guess you don't need to tell me anymore. I heard enough to be sure how to think about your opinion. Have a good day and spend a little bit of happiness, instead making wrong accuses. --Niabot (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Do you honestly believe that's a fair assessment of the various arguments? One point I will make is that, as Howcheng has made clear that this would go on the main page, that if we take Howcheng's word on the matter as law, and we do not feel this is appropriate for the main page, then it would be perfectly reasonable to oppose. J Milburn (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Let's put some facts together. At first we have more than 2/3 (excluding myself) that voted with support. Then we have the arguments:
- Misplaced Pages has never been about the majority rules or sheer headcount in deciding debates anywhere, so there is no point in trying to "disallow" votes. Such an act just produces ill will between the editors and doesn't promote the discussion. :(AerobicFox (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)