Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:On the edge - free world version.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:On the edge - free world version.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 21:38:27
Drawing of a fictional landscape with a figure in manga/anime style.

  •  Info Of quite doubtful educational value. It is not obvious why a "figure in manga style" has to be a naked woman with naive/suggestive face, tightly closed legs and big breasts and what she has to do with fictional landscape. Also don't think that image subject is totally irrelevant here and great usage of GIMP, Inkscape and Blender can be used to justify keeping it. If I were to make a photo of, say, hanged Mary the Elephant while taking care of smallest photographic intricacies, I don't think my image could get featured based on the "great camera work, subject irrelevant" argument. Ari Linn (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC) (Original nomination)[reply]
  • No way my fault - the delisting template automatically lists nominator's voice for "Delist". And I think it's logical. I've proposed it for delisting after all, should my voice be excluded for the sole reason I've been not greatly interested in working with images all done not in my native language but at the same time managed to stay active in wikipedia for 5 years and write articles? Ari Linn (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ask Alvesgaspar. He has a strong opinion on that. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 17:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Delist Restoring my vote - now I have those 50 edits and can vote as any regular user. Ari Linn (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but nothing in the rules refers to the 'time of the delist proposal'. What if Ari Linn had voted now for th first time? I have restored the vote, which is obvioulsy valid. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure? The General rules simply state, "Only registered contributors whose Commons' accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." Ari Linn fulfils that requirement. She has been a registered contributor in Commons since 2008, and she has more than 50 edits. --JN466 23:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you explain why you think the image should be kept as a featured picture? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you explain why you think the image should be kept as a featured picture? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist . It's not among the best work in Commons. As some editors pointed out at the FPC, the textures and perspective (especially the waterfall and its backdrop) are not top-notch; while the sky and light are well done, the overall composition is poor, and the content of the scene is too specific to be useful as a generic illustration of Manga style. If it's not illustrative, then it isn't educational, but a work of art in its own right, and as a work of art -- a work of art that is completely unknown outside Commons, by a non-notable artist -- it is too weak. In my view it is even doubtful if the image is within project scope. Commons is not a repository for self-created artwork without obvious educational value. --JN466 13:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice canvassing: [1] -- Paddy (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the amount of discussion the image attracted on the Commons list, notifying the list of this discussion was the right thing to do. --JN466 14:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist This is borderline even with COM:SCOPE (and IMHO on the outside side). Generally, I fail to see the reasons why this should be featured (and the nomination discussion does not help with that, the support vote comments are: “Kawaii”, “I like it”, “Superb work”, “i like her big tits :-)”, “i know that it was very much of work for the user”, “very good work”, “I have seen this work evolve and it is brilliant”, that’s all). Not that the picture isn’t nice, but – is that really all it takes for a FP? --Mormegil (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment leaving aside quality issues, this image is in use on the technology portal of the Chinese Wikipedia and the Anime and Manga portal of the Tagalog Wikipedia. It is also in use on several featured picture pages, but I cannot reliably tell if these are locally selected pictures or the same selection made on Commons. As it is in use on a Wikimedia project it is explicitly within the scope of Commons, "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose". It's use on the technology portal of the Chinese Wikipedia (based on Google translate I think it's being used as an example of what can be done with Gimp) suggests that its quality as an example of manga art is not the only consideration that should be made. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I come from Chinese Wikipedia, may be can solve some questions(我刚好来自中文维基，或许可以解释一些问题).I see"this image is in use on the Chinese Wikipedia".This may be a mistake(这可能是个误会),we don't know why "this image has been assessed using the Quality image guidelines and is considered a Quality image",in the name of done with Gimp(因为中文维基人也不清楚为何这图以GIMP制作的名义获得优质图像的). Use it, simply because the word "Quality image"(只是看到“优质图像”这词就使用了).
      for myself,it's not among the best work in Commons."the overall composition is poor, and the content of the scene is too specific to be useful as a generic illustration of Manga style"(只是堆砌技术，画面内容很多但像拼凑而成，找不到重点，并没有丰富的艺术表现)
      即使用推荐开源软件(generalizing Open Source Software)的名义，单论画工也不如这些图 GIMPたん on pixiv("Real good works").--Cirnonine (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hallo. It looks to me like the image was added in this edit two days ago, as part of a periodic image change, probably because it was on the Chinese Wikipedia main page (which copies the Commons picture of the day). That portal is transcluded into the other portal, hence the file usage listing shows the image as being in use on two Chinese Wikipedia portals. --JN466 20:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep That canvassing needs to end. Some people didn't liked to see that image in main page and now are creating all that crusade against it. That people needs to understand that Commons is not censored and get over that. Béria Lima msg 15:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, there has not been any canvassing. Secondly, it is not "some people", but rather a lot of people who objected to this image. The discussions that sprang up on the Russian Wikipedia's main page talk, on the Gendergap and Commons lists, and during the Wikimedia presentation of the Commons project to librarians and curators, were quite independent of each other. Perhaps it just isn't a particularly good image. --JN466 16:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Per Beria. It's off the main page. Theo10011 (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 15:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you explain why you think the image should be kept as a featured picture? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist Please, don't take this as an insult or any kind of venomous jeremiad! I'm trying to give an objective opinion. It is a colorful and nice looking picture as an artwork! But in my opinion it just fails to have the real value among other featured pictures as a documentation of the world. I think, in the future it would be quite problematic if every artist were nominating their most recent paintings of fictional stuff from their cool imagination. This is still not like Deviant Art kind of website. --Ximonic (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - It's beautifully done, and that's mostly what matters here on Commons. - Benh (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not according to Feature picture policy: "our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures ... beautiful does not always mean valuable." --JN466 17:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree. But I meant that artistic merit is more important than usefulness or encyclopedic value here. And I don't see much better and similar pictures than this one on Commons, which makes it valuable. - Benh (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, but then you have to be prepared to host any halfway decent original art in Commons -- any water-colour, oil painting, charcoal drawing, portrait, drawings of fictitious buildings, fantasy landscapes, etc., as well as garage bands' unpublished songs and other electronic media, each of which will be in a particular style it could conceivably illustrate. That's not what Commons is about, according to the present definition of project scope, where original art is expressly excluded.
        • There is more that could be said about the painting's quality; the waterfall has an involuntary MC Escher quality about it—it just does not make geometric sense; the shadows on the girl are off—considering where the sun is, her right shoulder and the right side of her face and nose should be shaded; her foot and toes look unreal—she is missing a big toe; the water cascading down the cliff should be in the shade, but instead has the same colour as the water at the lip of the fall that is in the sun, etc. While the image is obviously better than what most Wikimedians could produce, the artistic merit judged by professional art world standards is simply nowhere near outstanding. It's amateur art. And we don't have better or similar pictures of this style in Commons because amateur art has traditionally been outside scope, and most professional-quality contemporary artwork and music, even when Creative Commons-licensed, has some restrictions (usually non-commercial) that excludes it from Commons. --JN466 19:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your comments show a big lack of knowledge. The shading of the girl is right, because it is flat shading. (See literature about Super flat, the article is crap) Same goes for the anatomy, which is not human anatomy. The water does not need to be in shade, it actually gets light from the fog in the lower background and additionally from the wall to the left and something like a rainbow due to fine particles. You could also observer this effect in real nature. Just be at the right spot at the right time. You describe it as a fantasy world. But at the same time you want accurate physics and a real world scenario. Think about it. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 10:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's natural for you to defend your own work, but I suggest you have a few blind spots in assessing your work objectively. Some of the same objections were raised in the failed featured candidacy at de:WP, notably by Blutgretchen. The foot is just poorly drawn; even in manga people have big toes. The composition and perspective (see comments below) are well below featured quality. --JN466 11:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Für Dich scheint dafür was ganz anderes natürlich zu sein: du bist seit Monaten auf Commons nicht sonderlich aktiv und erwachtest plötzlich aus deinem "Schlaf" seitdem Du dieses Bild auf der Titelseite gesehen hast und es mit allen Mitteln versuchst los zu werden. Nachdem Du es nicht geschafft hast, Beria zu überzeugen, das Bild von der Titelseite zu entfernen weil es angeblich den enzyklopädischen Ansprüchen widerspricht kommt als weiteres Argümentchen "die Qualität reicht für FP nicht aus". Ein weiterer wegen offensichtlichem Dummfug sofort wieder geschlossener Löschantrag von Dir auf ein anderes Bild, was dieses hier einbindet und weitere Aktionen zeigen schön auf: dein durchsichtiges Verhalten changiert zwar immer wieder aber zielt letztlich doch nur auf Störmassnahmen ab. Du bist unter Beobachtung, mein Freundchen. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't think personal threats will get you very far in the long term. I'm not sure which deletion request you're referring to; the only one that fits your description is Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Paleis_lange_voorhout.jpg, which looks like a blatant and deceptive promotion of this same image, making it appear as though it had been displayed on the Escher museum. That deletion request is open. --JN466 11:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Dir wurde nicht gedroht; vielmehr stellt es eine sachliche Zusammenfassung deines Verhaltens der letzten Tage dar. Bitte zerfranse zudem keine Diskussionen sondern halt Dich an die hier üblichen Regeln. Danke für Beachtung. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I don't appreciate being called "Freundchen", which is typical bullying behaviour. It's uncivil, and certainly not "mellow". I would welcome it if you would discuss the image, rather than launching attacks against people who disagree with you. --JN466 11:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Freundchen: "unhöflich" sind hier - und das ist noch eine sehr milde Beschreibung - lediglich Deine Aktivitäten. Ziellose Diskussionen um der Diskussion Willen. Wir können uns auch darüber unterhalten, warum der Joghurt keine Gräten hat. Dem Projekt bringt es nichts, so wie auch alles, was sich aus deinem Dunstkreis der letzten Tage erhoben hat. Ende der Durchsage. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your are proving yourself wrong again. Do you need some good examples? Asako Nishida, Sakura Asakura, etc. What you still don't understand is perspective and emphasis (see first example). Who cares about the toes, if they aren't important. Or better said: It's the same as with the nose. Small up to invisible when not needed. Exaggerated if of importance. You better read some books about the topic instead making wrong statements based upon insufficient knowledge. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Good quality, rare to find such material under a free license. --Slaunger (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly  Delist . It does not appear to be a valuable picture, nor does it have any particular context, given that it is not used in any Wikipedia articles as best as I can tell (although a derivative File:Censorship in anime.jpg is used in a single English Wikipedia article). If its value can be demonstrated in other ways, then I'm not aware of it. It has a lot of composition issues - each element appears to be very disjointed and don't link well to each other (e.g. the tree looks very odd being so high up on the right, I've no clue what that wooden thing to the left of the tree is, there's a random pot in the background, the waterfall looks very awkward). The half-naked appearance of the girl appears to be gratuitous rather than intrinsically part of the style of image. There are much higher quality images available from the same Wikimedian (including several that are deservedly featured pictures: File:Mahuri.svg and File:Anime Girl.svg) I'm stunned that this became a featured picture at all, to be honest - I thought the standards here were much higher than this. Mike Peel (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I noted above, it is in use in the portal namespace on at least two Wikipedias, so by the Commons policy it has an educational purpose (the Portal namespace is, like the article namespace, reader facing). Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't view use in portals as a sufficient indication of value. Portal content is transient by nature, which means that it will most likely be removed from the portals at some point in the (near?) future (irrespective of this discussion). On the other hand, article use tends to be much more long term. If something really has high enough value to be a featured picture, then it should be used --Karelj (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)in a mainspace Wikipedia article somewhere, or have some other clear demonstration of its value. Mike Peel (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW, note that I'm arguing that the image lacks sufficient value, not that it lacks any educational value. I'm happy for the image to continue being hosted on Wikimedia Commons; I just don't think it's sufficiently important to be a featured picture. Mike Peel (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep a lately elected featured picture (December 2010) should be now, a half year later, not featured because it was "Picture of the Day" and some persons have problems with topless women in art? Nothing but a farce. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment On a side note — while those who are for delisting this pic tend to go into exhaustive detail why exactly it has some problems, why it can seem objectionable and why it's probably not the best idea to have media like that appear on the main page, many voices for keeping it sound like "huh?", "farce", "stop canvassing" and "it's totally your problem and problem of several other freaks like you, you're a minority and we won't deal with you, shush and bear it". I mean, if someone says "This pic is X, Y and Z, delist it", shouldn't opponents say something like "Well it maybe X, Y or even Z, but it is also A, B and C which prevails, keep it". The only real arguments that I see here is "it is used in some wikis" and "commons is not censored". Don't see how the fact it is used affects its being featured though (really, there are thousands of pics that are used in wikis without being featured). As for commons not being censored, all of us agree it's quite useful to have a handful of pics and photos displaying, say, breasts and pelvises of living or recently deceased people belonging to Western culture, but will any of them ever make it to the front page of an educational project without provoking a heated discussion? No. Why? Because pretty much everyone knows these are NOT something generic that you routinely see at the streets (or at home) of cities/towns in Europe or NA. Ari Linn (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment As this image and its selection as picture of the day on Commons and, therefore, the Bengali, Chinese, Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Bulgarian Wikipedias has been extensively discussed in largely unflattering terms on the Commons, Foundation and Gendergap mailing lists, some editors have expressed concern that these mailing list discussions may have had a canvassing effect. At present I see no indication whatever that this is so, but regardless would ask any editors voting one way or the other to please indicate whether they indeed did become aware of this delist request through one of the mailing list discussions, so the community and closing admin can take this into account. Thank you. --JN466 14:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I did become aware of this image through this post on the Gendergap list, and the resulting discussions on the Commons list, which started with this crossposting of that post. --JN466 14:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you explain why you think the image should be kept as a featured picture? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist I didn't think it was Featured quality when it was up for nomination in the first place. If you just compare it to other similar Featured media -- such as this and this -- you can see what I mean about technical and aesthetic quality not being up to snuff. The fact that we had an amateurish piece of anime with naked tits on the Main Page is just insult to injury, as far as I'm concerned, and the fact that we have a ton of people supporting such a crappy, uneducational file for mere sake of being against canvassing is not really applicable to this forum. The question is: is the file Featured quality or not? That's all that matters. There are plenty of Featured or potentially Featured artworks with toplessness in them that would be fine for the Main Page (Good example of what I mean). This file is not one of them. Steven Walling 18:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delist Probably out of scope and artistically not very special and amateurish. I see no reason why this picture should be featured. Adornix (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delist not up to featured picture quality. --Elian Talk 20:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep ist futured quality, its Art. We dont have to censored Commons. Its a drawing of a topless woman, no more. Would you delete Rubens? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect, the argument for delisting is not that it has breasts, but that it is several orders of magnitude below the quality of Rubens. Yes, Rubens has breasts, and this image has breasts, but that does not make them the same, nor does it mean that we should ignore all other aspects of this image, such as its artistic quality and educational value. The reasoning "Rubens has breasts, and is featured; this image has breasts, so it should be featured too" ignores the fact that entire books have been written about Rubens, whereas this is a non-notable image by a non-notable artist. Its only claim to fame is that it is here. And has breasts, which seem to be all some people are able to see. --JN466 20:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Were you born in the wrong Century? I guess yes. I also think that Wikipedia is the wrong place for you. -- Pro2 (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't care if outstanding art was produced yesterday or centuries ago. This, however, is just not outstanding contemporary art, which is reflected in the fact that you only find it in Commons, and need a Photoshop trick to produce this. --JN466 12:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist : the art isn't very high-quality. In particular, the styles of the the foreground and background clash, the shading on the woman's face is poor, and the angles of things feel wrong. --Carnildo (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep--Snaevar (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you explain why you think the image should be kept as a featured picture? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you explain why you think the image should be kept as a featured picture? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I can't see any reason for removal, author is a well-known drawer of excellent images and the image in question has received three different awards (Commons Quality Image, Picture of the Day at en:wp, Featured Image) and is highly used both on Commons and on many Wikipedias. --Manuel Schneider(bla) (+/-) 06:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
It only seems to be used in Wikipedia portals, rather than being included in any articles. The uses here on Commons appear to be due to it being featured on the main page, because it's currently classed as a featured picture, and also as a quality picture - it is e.g. not used in any gallery pages. It has never been "Picture of the Day at en:wp" - I'm not sure where you got that from (possibly from the Commons Picture of the Day template, which has an English translation attached?). Mike Peel (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the portal use in Chinese Wikipedia is recent and transient (see my post 20:23, 18 May 2011 above). --JN466 13:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment It is not necessary and desired to question and commend every vote. Votings can have personal reasons and no one can be obligated to tell us his personal thoughts. Moreover this undeviating drilling behavior disturbs the atmosphere and good form of use. Thank you for respecting this. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment

    Votings can have personal reasons and no one can be obligated to tell us his personal thought.

    Strongly disagree. If X's personal thoughts are "keep, I like her big tits" and Y's personal thoughts are "delist, I'll now explain why I think this way [goes into an extensive explanation where "project rules", "quality rating" and other words of that kind are present]", X's and Y's voices are not equal and we should know that. I'm in fact astonished that here people can jump in and say "Keep" or "Delist" without any explanation. There is no such thing in my native wiki when it comes to voting, especially when something is nominated for deletion or status removal. People get reprimanded and their voices can be excluded from counting of the votes if they fail to clearly explain why they think the way they do. Ari Linn (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you disagree, but reasons for a voting pro or contra must not be given here. Beside: this is a democratic basic right. And maybe some users don't give a reason because they see how some users question and commend them in a way that displays a lack of respect and they are not in the mood to suffer that. It is notable that you tolerate delist-votes with no or not clear reason but hunting proper those who vote for keeping. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable that you tolerate delist-votes with no or not clear reason but hunting proper those who vote for keeping.

vs

I'm in fact astonished that here people can jump in and say "Keep" or "Delist" without any explanation.

I'm now even more astonished to find out that when I say it may be not quite okay to vote either way without explaining any reasons it means I tolerate those who vote like me and hunt opposing views. Ari Linn (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

beauty

Please could you explain why you think the image should be kept as a featured picture? Thanks --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 delist, 20 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/removal/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg&oldid=227324234"