Talk:Bowsette

Source of the original design
Actually, Bowsette's design was first featured in a japanese hentai manga titled "Kameochi Momohime", by Mizuryu Kei, released on April 2018. Shouldn't we add a reference to that Magegg (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's something completely else and seems to revolve around Bowser mentally corrupting Peach vs. Bowser becoming Peach. It's not mentioned in any reliable source and tying it into this would probably constitute WP:ORIG.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The design is the same, I don't think is fair to consider Ayyk92 the "creator" of the character as he simply copied Kei's original design from the manga. Magegg (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a basic enough design that the majority of artists making a Bowser-inspired Peach would independently have ended up at something similar. Unless you have a source saying that Ayyk92 was basing their design on that porn manga, it's original research to tie the two together.--Alexandra IDVtalk 14:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There has been various other forms of female Bowser transformation art prdating Ayyk (such as Bliss'd Bowser by Ian Samson) as well as Peach to Bowser transformation art (such as Peach, Queen of the Koopas by Mr-DNA). However, Ayyk's comic is what pushed the popularity of Bowsette in the first place.  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 21:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Prior existence?
The article should make some mention of the fact that a "Lady Bowser" has existed in the fan community for years now. Granted the Super Crown power up and this specific general design did not, it has more or less simply legitimized a pre-existing concept in the fanbase. Although past fan creations were fan fiction designs such as a daughter of Peach and Bowser, or a sister, mother, and so forth. What sets Bowsette as unique is that it is a "Peachified" Bowser using an item that Nintendo its self came up with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:DFC0:C5:55FC:8752:322B:485E (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

A new record?
It only took 9 days for Bowsette to become a good article, from its inception as a redirect to becoming an article two days after the redirect was created to being promoted to good article status yesterday (according to UTC). This might be a new record and it's impressive how fast this was promoted to good article status. 344917661X (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a record as I've seen some War related noms basically get GA status two days after the article was created but the speed of development given the newness of the topic is something participating editors can be proud of. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Dance, Voldo, Dance got to GA shortly after it was written, same with MissingNo. so it's not that uncommon.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. 344917661X (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

GAR Needed
In nearly six months of fairly close study of the GA process this is one of the more unusual reviews in that it was claimed by one reviewer but suddenly passed by a different reviewer as a quickpass. I do not think this article should have passed in its current state. In doing a quick glance of the article, if I had been reviewing, i would have had issues with the LEAD (especially the never-ending first sentence and with some of the sources used. I think community review is a ghost town and try and avoid sending things that way but given the fact that and  both expressed interest in reviewing this but didn't do so, perhaps this would be a case where it could be useful. Nova and/or Danny would you be interested in working together in a community GAR to review this article against the criteria? If not I will do an individual GAR. Pinging  as previous reviewer and  as nominator. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No objections from me. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  05:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all,, can you ask permission in the future if you want to take one of these? You literally just completely usurped the reviewer that had chosen this article not even 24 hours before. It's one thing if they've been MIA for a week or two, or longer, but I and don't really think what you did was acceptable, especially without asking anyone.  danny music editor  oops 05:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Second of all, yes, I can lend my assistance to the best of my ability. My experience is in music but I'll speak up if I see anything.  danny music editor  oops 05:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll admit it was weird, but what sources are an issue for you? I might as well tackle any concerns here now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I reverted a gif
I've reverted a gif added by a one User:D4n2016 to the article, which he uploaded on Commons (NSFW), claiming to be the author (here is the source, still NSFW). I'm aware that Bowsette has an ocean of porn and that Wikipedia has a number of pornographic or otherwise NSFW images. However, I removed it because of it's copyright status and because I don't think it really added anything to the article. I'm on the fence about that matter since, again, the character has a large amount of porn of her. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  00:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's needed, and unlike the other two doesn't really add anything. The reception as is already mentions some of the art was lewd.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of the above users. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * agree too, thought it was "important" to get this gif into the article asap (to show "Bowsette" is intended to be "lewd" by it's inventor, afaik?), glad you guys made a decision that quickly. Sorry, I didn't know how to reach the creator of that gif/didn't know who that was until you linked the source (thanks for it!) All the best to you all, D4n2016 (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The source is in the bottom right corner of the gif. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  01:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

5 words
One. Hundred. And. Nine. Papers. Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 00:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2018
Bowsette isn't a genderbent. It's just a peach look-a-like Bowser. Also, it's the Super Crown that turned Bowser into this. Bowsette takes off that Super Crown, he turns right back to Bowser. In the game however, if anyone but Toadette touches the Super Crown, they only get ten coins. Fandom Bella (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Fandom Bella (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sources call it gender bent. The in-game mechanics of the crown are irrelevant. -- ferret (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So the changing of a male character into a look alike of a female character is not a genderbend? – ♠Vami _IV†♠  04:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I don't know about the mechanics being irrelevant to the article, but you're right that being genderbent isn't really up for debate.  danny music editor  oops 13:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I meant generally in so far as being an explanation about 'why' it's not genderbent. -- ferret (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

This article was created before Donna Strickland
Nice to see where wikipedians priorities are. 2A01:4C8:9:1C89:9110:2FCE:4CEE:F3F8 (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a volunteer project. We build articles based on what we want to at the time. I came out of retirement to write this because I wanted to. If you want to make articles you feel are lacking on wikipedia, nobody's stopping you from making an account, compiling sources and releasing your own.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It's only your fault, anon, you could have done anytime but you didn't. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Should we renominate this article?
The only thing that prevented this article from becoming a good article was that it is not stable enough and that the content in the article was changing too frequently to be a GA. However, edits on the article have slowed down meaning it is likely stable enough to pass, but i'm not the one to decide, so i've posted this here hoping to get a consensus on wether or not to renominate the article. So should we? 344917661X (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say wait just a bit longer, momentum's still going a bit even if it slowed down some.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How much longer should we wait? 344917661X (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly a few more weeks at least. We're still getting people arguing over stuff like "this was done in a porn comic first!" or "Bowser only gets 10 coins" (which I can't actually find a source for yet and doesn't really matter in the context of this) and so forth. I'd rather the hype die down enough where we don't have a repeat of what was going on with the GAR ultimately, with a lot of good faith editors stepping over each other to the point it was hard to keep track of some changes.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, let's wait until the hype dies down. We should also add a warning when editing the article not to change who first came up with Bowsette and to not add anything related to the 10 coins thing. 344917661X (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah both are covered by the talk page, people will still bring it up though. It's like how MissingNo. people still try to bring up "Oh he's in Pokemon Yellow" when that's not even the same thing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

See Also Cut Man V
On the See also Section of this article, should we mention Cut Man V (created by Sesakaheart) because Cut Man V is also a fan-made alternate form of a character? Here's an image of him.Kaithehedgefox
 * No. There are thousands of fan made alternatives for thousands of different characters. Just because something exists doesn't make it notable or important. Unless you can find several examples of reliable secondary sources covering this, it doesn't belong on wikipedia. Forums,  deviantart, Tumblr, etc, are not reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But in my opinion the reason why I think only Cut Man V should be noted below is because that Cut Man V is a fan-made super mode version of Cut Man. Many Others aren't. Kaithehedgefox (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)kaithehedgefoxKaithehedgefox (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Bowsette meets WP:GNG due to more or less going viral in the extreme and thus receiving widespread media coverage. Cut Man V has not gone viral or received significant coverage, while bowsette was pretty much unavoidable for most of september/october as a a stand-alone phenomenon. CommissarPat (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, there isn't alot of information about Cut Man V on the web, so Cut Man V doesn't need to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.231.187.127 (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

New source
https://kotaku.com/nintendo-officially-shoots-down-bowsette-1831489905 Sergecross73   msg me  16:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Worked it in, not as surprised as they seem to be in that article though. Definitely odd they mention Luigi specifically in that blurb however.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought the Luigi mention was bizarre too. I wasn’t sure if I was missing something, or if it was purposefully random/misdirection, as to not make it seem so direct of a response to Bowsette. (Which, if that was a case, was a failure, because I came across about 10 other sources that more or less said the same thing as Kotaku here, directly tying it to bowsette.) Sergecross73   msg me  17:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Two copyrighted images?
I wonder whether the second copyrighted image is really necessary. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The second illustrates a design variance with several artists that drew the character and the contributions by more mainstream artists towards the meme. More thorough reasoning can likely be found on the GAN page, but consensus was that it was fine for the purposes of the article and fine under fair use.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm only just noticing this conversation after having already made an edit. I switched out the lead image of the article to one that better portrays the character (the Ayyk92 comic is important for the history of Bowsette, but given that a lot of the character is out of frame in that comic, I don't think it's an ideal lead image). With the Ayyk92 comic now moved to the Background section, and the new lead image also showing a spiked tail, the Kōsuke Kurose image seemed unnecessary. Given that this article is about a fan-drawn character with tons of possible depictions (including several already on Commons), it seems to me that the Kōsuke Kurose image fails WP:FREER. – Iago Qnsi (User talk:IagoQnsi) 22:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm already questioning just how many on Wikipedia Commons are actual viable for this purpose especially given the derivative nature of this character and use of iconography tied to Nintendo trademarks (Koopa shells, the crown itself), but by and far this article did not need four images to showcase what two are able to readily do: the origin comic, variation of design, and contributions by notable artists. Additionally a cosplay image adds nothing to the understanding of the character because cosplay was not a significant factor here, nor particularly unique to this character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Top image choice
I'm starting this discussion after I was reverted by User:Kung Fu Man. I think File:Bowsette another one by poderosoandrajoso.png should be used as the top image in the article and File:Bowsette Comic by ayyk92.jpg should be moved to the Background section. This article is titled "Bowsette" and is about the character as a whole, not just the original comic by ayyk92. While the original comic is very valuable to include as part of the character's history, it's not an ideal image for talking about the character herself because we can't see much of her. The comic is tightly framed so that we can't much of her body (e.g. crown, legs, koopa shell are all obscured). Additionally, Bowsette is also only a small part of the total frame which includes several other characters (this is especially problematic since the image has such a low resolution).

The image I picked shows Bowsette uncropped, in-full, as the lone subject, and at a high resolution. I chose it because I thought it was the best one out of commons:Category:Bowsette, but I would welcome another free image if a better one is available. (I didn't use the existing image File:Bowsette by Yuske Murata.png because I believe that image violates WP:NFC and should be deleted; discuss at ). – Iago Qnsi (User talk:IagoQnsi) 05:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm admittedly very confused why you seem insistent the original comic image should take less priority than the subsequent works based off it. Reasonings of the image being low resolution and cropped are due to discussions on here and during the GAN where it was reasoned to use only a relevant section to it. Additionally as I said here above and on the discussion link, I do question the validity of those images in commons as free use, given they seem to be taken from artists' pages and are just as derivative as the professional artist's work used here, minus the relevance to the article of said artists contributing their own fan art.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that the original comic is a bad choice for the top of the article because it's low-res/cropped; I'm arguing it's a bad choice because Bowsette is not the focus of the image. I'll repeat what I wrote above: This article is titled "Bowsette" and is about the character as a whole, not just the original comic by ayyk92. While the original comic is very valuable to include as part of the character's history, it's not an ideal image for talking about the character herself because we can't see much of her. The comic is tightly framed so that we can't much of her body (e.g. crown, legs, koopa shell are all obscured). Additionally, Bowsette is also only a small part of the total frame which includes several other characters.
 * As for the Commons images, you may be right that some/all of those images need to be removed from Commons as derivative works. However, even if these images are not entirely free, they are freer than the Kurose image. The Commons images are free depictions of a non-free character, while the Kurose image is a non-free depiction of a non-free character. Per WP:FREER, we should choose images with the least copyright restrictions. If those images are to be deleted from Commons, we would need to upload one of them to Wikipedia with a non-free rationale. – Iago Qnsi (User talk:IagoQnsi) 21:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually adding to this, the original source of the second image is from Kurose's twitter (https://twitter.com/kurosep/status/1043915775810011136?s=21) and doesn't even have any indication of copyright or even an artist's signature on the images. Could it be possible to just move it to commons then under the same guidelines that apparently allowed the deviantart fan art?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The poderosoandrajoso image has an explicitly-stated CC BY-SA license listed on its DeviantArt page. Commons can only host content which has been explicitly placed under a free license; anything else is automatically copyrighted by law. – Iago Qnsi (User talk:IagoQnsi) 21:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We could reach out to Kurose and see if he'd be up for it, language barrier would be an issue. If not that then perhaps one of the other professional artists if the Free Use options are this much an problem, but I still think for the purposes of an article actually using a relevant image vs random fan art (which are still very questionable on commons to begin with due to being derivative and I really don't think would hold up if scrutinized).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)