507:. 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
316:
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).
51:
129:- 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. —
250:- 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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.
602:"6. Is verifiable." No; using Knowledge (XXG)'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. Knowledge (XXG) 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.
528:- 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) —
315:
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
91:
658:. The drawing itself are very well done in my opinion however i don't think it suits well with the Knowledge (XXG) article (it does help me imagining it but doesn't made it easier to understand). What about Picture of the day on Wikimedia Commons?
290:
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
Knowledge (XXG) and Wikimedia Commons.
583:"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.
148:– 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. ―
617:; 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.
589:"3. Is among Knowledge (XXG)'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
599:"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.
734:
605:"7. Has a descriptive, informative and complete file description in English." While the current description could be more detailed, I think it's sufficient.
724:
613:
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
17:
729:
710:
695:
673:
648:
626:
571:
554:
537:
520:
499:
487:
455:
431:
411:
394:
374:
351:
331:
300:
282:
259:
242:
225:
203:
177:
160:
138:
121:
659:
593:. The most I can say is that it doesn't look like the other images I've seen cycle through Today's Featured Picture.
663:
550:
516:
255:
267:
I believe it's somewhat using
Japanese artistic tropes to dshow the relationship, which suits the characters.
73:", a concept somewhat difficult to illustrate through CC! My friend drew this image on my suggestion for the
116:
669:
58:
50:
644:
608:"8. Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation." The image is natively digital; I don't think this applies.
481:
451:
347:
173:
156:
533:
199:
134:
441:
It seems the image of a fictional relationship that causes controversy has itself caused controversy.
622:
567:
546:
512:
251:
99:
576:
I was confused by this one, and decided to go through the criteria list to do things by the book.
112:
83:
74:
70:
638:
473:
445:
419:
382:
362:
341:
319:
270:
167:
150:
92:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle
529:
407:
296:
195:
130:
688:
399:
222:
425:
388:
368:
325:
276:
618:
563:
718:
707:
692:
238:
403:
307:
292:
165:
If anything, this image deserves a "most contested FP nomination" of the year. ―
496:
218:
194:
was similar, over a decade back (and the
Commons nom was also contentious) —
336:
687:
this vote. Editor has less than 100 edits. See instructions on top of the
234:
440:
49:
190:
User-generated art tends to get controversial. The lead image at
358:
Proving Nick-D a horrible liar who should be ashamed of himself.
357:
191:
545:. Too in-universe to be easily understood or representative. —
356:
And now someone has written romantic fanfiction about them.
61:
sitting on a bench in a park, posed in a romantic context.
495:- I agree with NickD. This is not a real-world example.
35:
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.
233:– Beyond the ken of most Eng.-lang. readers. –
71:fictional relationship that causes controversy
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
667:
217:- it was added to the article today... --
735:Featured picture nominations/August 2024
69:A rather masterful illustration of a "
379:Do note where that linked text goes.
7:
80:Articles in which this image appears
725:Ended featured picture nominations
24:
586:"2. Is of high resolution." Yes.
1:
711:16:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
696:23:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
674:14:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
649:20:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
627:17:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
596:"4. Has a free license." Yes.
572:09:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
555:06:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
538:01:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
521:19:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
500:18:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
488:16:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
456:20:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
432:11:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
412:10:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
395:00:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
375:22:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
352:22:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
332:21:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
301:05:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
204:23:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
178:20:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
730:Featured picture nominations
416:Dangit, that made me laugh.
283:16:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
260:01:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
243:12:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
226:18:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
161:17:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
139:16:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
122:15:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
751:
88:FP category for this image
59:Wikipe-tan and Commons-tan
28:Wikipe-tan and Commons-tan
312:Would it help if I did?
424:Has about 8.9% of all
387:Has about 8.9% of all
367:Has about 8.9% of all
324:Has about 8.9% of all
275:Has about 8.9% of all
62:
39:Voting period ends on
53:
562:per Nick and Chris.
108:Support as nominator
660:Stvk Công Cuối (VN)
84:Shipping discourse
75:Shipping discourse
63:
676:
120:
47:
742:
647:
486:
484:
480:
476:
454:
430:
393:
373:
350:
330:
311:
281:
176:
159:
111:
38:
36:
750:
749:
745:
744:
743:
741:
740:
739:
715:
714:
637:
511:relationships.
482:
478:
474:
472:
444:
429:
417:
392:
380:
372:
360:
340:
329:
317:
305:
280:
268:
166:
149:
37:
34:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
748:
746:
738:
737:
732:
727:
717:
716:
704:Not Promoted
701:
700:
699:
698:
678:
677:
672:comment added
651:
630:
629:
611:
610:
609:
606:
603:
600:
597:
594:
587:
584:
578:
577:
574:
557:
547:David Eppstein
540:
530:Chris Woodrich
523:
513:Neo Purgatorio
502:
490:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
423:
386:
366:
323:
313:
285:
274:
262:
252:Di (they-them)
245:
228:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
206:
196:Chris Woodrich
183:
182:
181:
180:
142:
141:
131:Chris Woodrich
124:
104:
103:
102:(Commons user)
97:
94:
89:
86:
81:
78:
67:
45:15:28:51 (UTC)
33:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
747:
736:
733:
731:
728:
726:
723:
722:
720:
713:
712:
709:
705:
697:
694:
690:
686:
682:
681:
680:
679:
675:
671:
665:
661:
657:
656:
652:
650:
646:
642:
641:
635:
632:
631:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
607:
604:
601:
598:
595:
592:
588:
585:
582:
581:
580:
579:
575:
573:
569:
565:
561:
558:
556:
552:
548:
544:
541:
539:
535:
531:
527:
524:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
503:
501:
498:
494:
491:
489:
485:
477:
470:
467:
457:
453:
449:
448:
442:
439:
433:
427:
422:
421:
415:
414:
413:
409:
405:
401:
398:
397:
396:
390:
385:
384:
378:
377:
376:
370:
365:
364:
359:
355:
354:
353:
349:
345:
344:
338:
335:
334:
333:
327:
322:
321:
314:
309:
304:
303:
302:
298:
294:
289:
286:
284:
278:
273:
272:
266:
263:
261:
257:
253:
249:
246:
244:
240:
236:
232:
229:
227:
224:
220:
216:
213:
212:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
188:
187:
186:
185:
184:
179:
175:
171:
170:
164:
163:
162:
158:
154:
153:
147:
144:
143:
140:
136:
132:
128:
125:
123:
118:
114:
113:Generalissima
109:
106:
105:
101:
98:
95:
93:
90:
87:
85:
82:
79:
76:
72:
68:
65:
64:
60:
56:
52:
48:
46:
42:
29:
26:
19:
703:
702:
684:
668:— Preceding
654:
653:
639:
633:
614:
590:
564:Josh Milburn
559:
542:
525:
508:
504:
492:
468:
446:
420:Adam Cuerden
418:
383:Adam Cuerden
381:
363:Adam Cuerden
361:
342:
320:Adam Cuerden
318:
287:
271:Adam Cuerden
269:
264:
247:
230:
214:
168:
151:
145:
126:
107:
54:
44:
40:
32:
27:
400:I sure will
119:) (it/she)
41:5 Sep 2024
719:Categories
509:fictitious
619:Moonreach
708:Armbrust
693:Armbrust
634:Comment:
100:Honemura
77:article.
55:Original
670:undated
505:Support
483:Sphere!
469:Support
265:Support
248:Support
215:Comment
146:Comment
127:Comment
96:Creator
691:page.
689:WP:FPC
685:struck
655:Oppose
640:Howard
615:oppose
560:Oppose
543:Oppose
526:Oppose
493:Oppose
475:Vulcan
447:Howard
404:Nick-D
343:Howard
308:Nick-D
293:Nick-D
288:Oppose
231:Oppose
169:Howard
152:Howard
66:Reason
591:might
497:MER-C
219:Janke
16:<
664:talk
623:talk
568:talk
551:talk
534:talk
517:talk
408:talk
337:Huh?
297:talk
256:talk
239:talk
223:Talk
200:talk
192:yaoi
135:talk
117:talk
666:)
636:– ―
479:❯❯❯
471:.--
426:FPs
402:;)
389:FPs
369:FPs
326:FPs
277:FPs
235:Sca
43:at
721::
706:--
683:I
645:🌽
643:•
625:)
570:)
553:)
536:)
519:)
452:🌽
450:•
410:)
348:🌽
346:•
299:)
258:)
241:)
221:|
202:)
174:🌽
172:•
157:🌽
155:•
137:)
110:–
57:–
662:(
621:(
566:(
549:(
532:(
515:(
443:―
428:.
406:(
391:.
371:.
339:―
328:.
310::
306:@
295:(
279:.
254:(
237:(
198:(
133:(
115:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
