Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan SVG

Wikipe-tan SVG

Reason: One of the reasons for the delisting of the PNG was aliasing. In vector format, the resolution is better.
Articles this image appears in: Moe anthropomorphism, WP:Wikipe-tan
Creator: Original by Kasuga, SVG version by Editor At Large

Support as nominator --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 16:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is this a good example of anything if you stand back from the purported 'personification of Wikipedia'?. I don't find anything about this to be FP material. Mfield (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does not have any encyclopedic value. Muhammad(talk) 18:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- No encyclopedic value, just another Wikipedia image. Not FP certainly. ~Meldshal42_{Hit me}^{What I've Done} 19:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not encyclopedic, and if I did choose to make a personification of WP, it would not be in moe style. Add to that the fact that stating this is a "personification of WP" is totally up to personal interpretation, and likely OR, it all adds up to no FP. Clegs (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OR#Original_images.Geni 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from that page, "images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." this image does propose an unpublished idea: that this picture out of all others, is the personification of WP. Clegs (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking issue with the fact that it is user-created. I'm taking issue with the fact that a) this is a self-reference, and featuring them is usually frowned on, and b) I consider the assertion that this is a "moe personification of WP" to be OR.Clegs (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1)this is not a self reference in the way WP:SELF means. 2)The argument being advanced in this case is that Moe anthropomorphism exists.Geni 23:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, let me clarify. By OR I am saying Original Research

Is an architectural painting OR? If so, you may want to consider listing Image:ClevelandTowerWatercolor20060829.jpg for delisting Clegs. Personally, I think original illustrations of already researched topics are not OR. de Bivort 22:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more concern I have is with ballot stuffing from the AnimeProject users. This was mentioned by several people in the nom for delist, I believe jjron, MER-C and Fir made the best case for delisting it, based on that fact. Please read the delist for a fuller discussion of the reasons it was delisted, quality was only one of several major issues users had with it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/Wikipe-tan_full_length. Clegs (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"ballot stuffing" ummm.Geni 23:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For want of a better term. This comment nails the problem quite nicely. MER-C 13:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

support see Moe anthropomorphism and the previous complaints have been met.Geni 19:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think this image has what it takes to be promoted, but it definitely has encyclopedic value. It illustrates Moe anthropomorphism well. NauticaShad es 21:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ... honestly? No. Doesn't meet size requirements and definitely no real EV. crassic!^[talk] 02:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crassic - it's an SVG with arbitrarily high resolution. pixel limit doesn't apply.... de Bivort 03:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per previous discussions. It's a perfect illustration of the anthropomorphism. That it personifies WP is irrelevant. Attractive, illustrative, well done. de Bivort 03:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose definitely not for the FP. M.K. (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand on your reasons?Geni 12:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Say this was promoted, how would this go up on the main page? We say, Here's the mascot for our manga wikiproject (?). Spencer^T♦^C 11:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

broadly speaking like this.Geni 12:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... which would make it ineligible for POTD, as we don't like to repeat them. MER-C 13:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um yes. So?Geni 14:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MERC, I imagine you know well that FPC is separate from POTD, we don't evaluate images based on their POTD viability. de Bivort 22:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to 'oppose, based on the original delisting discussion, and other concerns. Spencer^T♦^C 01:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Kawaii classic.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose May be illustrative but far from unique or particularly impressive visually or technically. If this gets an FP, then a pic of Homer Simpson could. Capital photographer (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no see Wikipedia:Copyrights.Geni 11:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC

Copyright violations aside, he is correct in the principle. If we promote this cartoon character, we'll have to promote merely competent drawings of practically every other cartoon character. Clegs (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No we won't because those would be kinda copyvios.Geni 21:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar reasoning to say that we should promote one civil war general because it would mean potentially promoting many others. This reasoning has been generally rejected except for the caveat that spamming a single type of nomination reduces voting enthusiasm. So .. let's please evaluate this image based on the explicit FP criteria. de Bivort 22:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is Wikipedia ever seen as that twee ? - Peripitus (Talk) 12:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't think featured pictures were supposed to advertise, doesnt this advertise wikipedia? --Hadseys 15:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bit of a grey area. Make a stunning image of a car, a public attraction or a brand name product an FP and it ends up advertising the product. So long as it meets FP criteria and is deserving of an FP, I don't see the harm if it inadvertently and unavoidably promoted a product. That said, such justification does not apply to this image. Capital photographer (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mainly for the self-referencing. If the article was on Wikipe-tan, it would be fine, but we should avoid self-references whenever possible in non-Wikipedia-related articles. Would support if changed to some other subject. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-05-24 17:04Z
Oppose - I don't think this has much encyclopaedic value, so therefore no. |→ Spaully^₪† 11:03, 25 May 2008 (GMT)
Support a very good example of Moe Anthropomorphism and general anime style illustration. Cat-five - talk 03:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]