Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ecchi

Ecchi
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: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 Wikipedia'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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Seems to be a rather inappropriate use of dutch angle, judging by the article. Kaldari (talk) 02:01, 12 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)
 * Also it doesn't have to be on the Main page like the other imges, it can be like the other images in 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 Wikipedia 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)


 * 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)
 * Anonymous vote stricken.  Jujutacular  talk 23:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that this user has no edits to Wikipedia 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)
 * 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 me  +  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 Wikipedia 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 "[a] 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 "[a] 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 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.


 * Nick Levinson (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 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. — raeky  t  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)


 * Support 2000px version. Eye-catching depiction of encyclopedic subject. Twilight chill  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 T♦ C 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)
 * . J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 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)
 * "...has encyclopedic value in its own right". The article Dutch angle states that it is "used to portray the psychological uneasiness or tension in the subject being filmed"...and the purpose of this image is titillation, not psychological uneasiness.  Spencer T♦ C 18:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The you should get into further detail where this tension comes from. You will soon find out that it emphasizes the size/weight of the portrayed figures. Without the dark surrounding, like in the example picture (btw a bad movie), only this emphasis is left. A basic concept in art everywhere. Its all about tension, but not only in a dark uneasy way., , , , . In short. The article is one sided and should be marked as bad, since it is more then only this special case. --Niabot (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the pictures in the google books examples, I can see absolutely zero that would become FPs. For example, dutch angle detracts from EV in the photo in this link you gave: . Although it has a greater emphasis as a cinema technique (that may be popular), nonetheless, it detracts from EV in photographs and illustrations such as this.  Spencer T♦ C 18:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's only the angle. This can be fixed in five steps. a) Open the image in Inkscape b) Select anything c) Rotate the image d) adjust the document window e) save or export it. No quality will be lost in this procedure. --Niabot (talk) 18:23, 13 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)
 * See Help:Interwiki linking — raeky  t  04:34, 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. — raeky  t  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. — raeky  t  07:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No... it doesn't... o_O
 * WP:POLL
 * "Wikipedia 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."
 * Wikipedia 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. :( I don't mean to sound as condescending as you seemingly didn't mean to come across, but please review the guidelines before the next time you tell someone else to do so.AerobicFox (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are guidelines for how Wikipedia functions, not how FPC functions. At FPC we operate by simple voting for promoting pictures. Sometimes a votes are not counted for various technical reasons, and when people solicit votes by canvasing like has occurred here, it causes problems when uninvolved editors who are not aware of how FPC operates jumps in and votes for pictures, although pictures like this that cause problems are VERY rare. You need to be aware of how things operate on all the sub-sections of wikipedia is not the same way we handle editing articles. Several areas of wikipedia function under voting mechanics, FPC nominations is one. — raeky  t  20:33, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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)

Closure Discussion

 * It seems that this nomination has generated a fair degree of controversy, and I'd like to ask the other uninvolved closers to comment on how it should be closed. I have stricken the 1 vote of an IP, but counting all others it seems to be 12 supporting and 6 opposed ( = 2/3). I see this as a promotion. Comments?  Jujutacular  talk 23:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Promote, but don't put on the main page (if only to avoid controversy) would be my interpretation. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it seems we have no influence on whether or not something is featured on the main page, and Howcheng has indicated that he favors using it. I would suggest seeking more input, as the disagreement here seems to be rather strong, and thus not in the spirit of consensus (even if the 2/3rds technically meets the normal threshold). Kaldari (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I would like to point out that User:AerobicFox's first edit to Wikipedia was 3 days ago. Many of the other support votes were also from editors who do not normally participate at FPC, and appear to be "drive-by" votes related to the "prudery" thread at Commons. Kaldari (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Insofar as criteria apart from voting matter, I'm one of those who raised the issue of encyclopedic value. The defenses to that objection have largely been with points not stated or obvious in the picture and caption, and I wonder if that's adequate as defense. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Nick Levinson: Please tell me what you mean with the caption of the picture? (The text under the thumbnail or the description of the image page?) If it's this, than it can be easily fixed, also with references. --Niabot (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Kaldari: Look at the date of the entry at commons, it was very close to the end of the voting period. Don't think that it had a great effect. On the other hand it's more a less the only picture with such an topic on FPC, so someone could expect that other users participate then normal. --Niabot (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All three English texts are the same (comparing the Commons page, the WP file page, and this page). But, given the picture, I don't see how rewriting the caption can make up for its apparent absence of encyclopedic value. Some of what you've said in defense of the nomination would have to be in the picture itself to gain that value, and that doesn't look within reach. Nick Levinson (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC) (Corrected to stop displaying WP image: 11:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)) (Corrected to fix the prespacing and the row of disks: 11:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC))
 * I expanded the description of the image on commons "a little", which also effects the WP file page, since it's mirrored from commons. The only thing left is the image description on this page. But it could be easily copied from the image description page. But you missed one point: My question. --Niabot (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I must have misunderstood your question, since I thought you wanted to know which caption or text I was referring to. If you meant to ask something else, please rephrase your question. I can see you have a little difficulty with English and I'll try to accommodate that, but try asking again, in different words. I'll come back later today (I'm not in any shape to stay right now) and I'll try to answer then. Nick Levinson (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "I don't see how rewriting the caption can make up for its apparent absence of encyclopedic value." How can it be absent, if it illustrates the main facts of the genre ecchi? It is drawn in anime/manga style, it features at least one character and it shows tight clothing, which is lets the image tend to be "naugthy" but not "obscene" or pornographic. Exactly this is more or less the definition of ecchi. Other elements of this picture are explained within the description. "Some of what you've said in defense of the nomination would have to be in the picture itself to gain that value, and that doesn't look within reach." What did i say in defense of the nomination, that is not inside the picture? --Niabot (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we have a good reason to ignore the last three "strong supports". These are people who arrived from the Commons discussion and, without necessarily understanding the nature of FPC or the nature of the dispute, just threw in a strong opinion, perhaps as some kind of attempt to "counterbalance" the prudery in this discussion. Those three, who arrived at the last minute, were conveniently all that was required to push the discussion into the promote territory... Even if we don't fully ignore them, devaluing them at all would push this into not promote. J Milburn (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are your trying to ignore the opinions of people from other countries, even if they could and did participate in this project? Didn't you do exactly the same as them? Since the only true reason i can read out of your wording is: "It might be / is offensive, and I'm opposing it only because of this reason, since I hate sexual depictions." Someone should study the freedom of art in ancient times... --Niabot (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So I'm a racist as well as a prude? I think you really are taking my criticisms too personally. I have no issue with the picture itself, and I have no issue with sexual depictions (though, as I have said, I do not feel this image belongs on the main page). I feel those votes should not be given weight for the reasons I explained, not because the users are from other countries. J Milburn (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do they not have the same right to vote as you? And i don't call you a racist! Thats something you brought up yourself. Is there anything that qualifies you more for this decision then them? And I'm still in the dark, on what facts you based your decision to oppose. The only thing i read so far on facts, are the lines in my previous comment, since you "have no issue with the picture itself", "no issue with sexual depictions". But you do "feel" it doesn't belong on the main page. For what reason?! --Niabot (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me go through your arguments so far. The first was: "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?" You were right at that time. The article was missing essential information. After i searched for some sources you stated: "Ok- then there is a problem with the article, fix it." After i fixed the article (as good as i could with my English) you found it not good enough (the article). "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.". After that i added additional Information to the article and left you a comment, that still got no reaction (see voting section). In the middle of this, Howcheng indicated that he would had no problem to represent it on the mainpage. Your reaction was: "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." After that you supposed to strike out the last three votings, since the image has a 2/3 support/oppose ratio. If i collect all this arguments in a row, it gets clear that you never had never more of a reason, as you don't want it on the mainpage and any cost, but never an explanation for  why? . This seams very tricky to me. --Niabot (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Niabot, you implied that the reason I was trying to discount the opinions of the final three voters because they were from a different country to me. If that's not accusing me of racism, I don't know what is. As for the rest of your post, well. Again, I'm willing to blame it on the language barrier, but you are completely misrepresenting my position. So, I will make clear my positions again. Firstly, I oppose the promotion of this image on EV grounds; I am not convinced it is adding significantly to the article in which it is used. Secondly, I oppose the use of this image on the main page because it is overly sexual; we have to be careful of what is displayed on the main page. Thirdly, while opposition to an image appearing on the main page is normally not a good reason to oppose an image's promotion to FP status, in this case, it is, as it has been made clear that if it were promoted, it would be used on the main page. I am not opposing it for that reason, I am just saying that that is not a bad reason to oppose it, in response to someone who said it was. Fourthly, my reasoning for discounting the votes of the final three voters is that they arrived from elsewhere, clearly in an attempt to counterbalance perceived "prudery". They do not necessarily understand the nature of FPC, and even explicitly refer to the Commons promotion- their votes were, to put it plainly, made for the wrong reason. None of these are particularly difficult points, yet you have repeatedly misrepresented my position. J Milburn (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any consensus here as Commons talk:Sexual content debate & poll poisoned the discussion thus turned it into proxy battlefield for what is occurring in Commons. I also deny either side the right to claim to be the good guys side of the discussion. Editors never agreed on a clear definition of Encyclopedic Contents. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Took me a minute, but I think he is saying that consensus cannot be determined from this discussion due to interference turning it into a battle.  Jujutacular  talk 20:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support that. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, nice. Aim reached. Image hidden. World is fine. Great! Somehow i think it is funny that an image that was finalist on commons picture of the year and caused no problems at all, is making trouble on EN. Guess the left column says all that is needed to understand. --Niabot (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Images uncontroversially promoted on Commons often aren't promoted here; there's a reason there are two separate processes. You really need to drop the paranoia. J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Paranoia? --Niabot (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are plenty of reasons people could oppose this other than because of the anti-sexual content conspiracy. J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Would everyone agree to disengage?

There is no consensus because editors used/use this discussion to make a POINT on the Wikimedia & sexual content debate. Grrr how much i dislike to use caps.

Second no one should leave this discussion thinking himself/herself as a good guy/girl defending Wikipedia from the evil bad persons from the other side.

Third lets convene another discussion on this picture when it will be free from external interference and evaluated for itself.

Fourth there is a handful of questions that people should ask themselves for next discussion: --KrebMarkt (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What this picture has to do Wikipedia or not?
 * Why this picture is among the very best work of Wikipedia or not?
 * Do you think that contents directly or indirectly related to sex can be among the best of contents of Wikipedia and why?
 * The point people are trying to make (and one of mine) is that it fails #5 and #7 of the criteria to be a FP on EN. The sexuality aspect on the main page is another valid argument for opposing, although not a direct failure on any of the criteria. We accept votes for or against that are based on personal opinion. We don't discount an oppose vote if it's not citing a criteria it fails. On the other hand when someone canvases for votes, like has occurred here, votes that come in as the result of the canvasing can be ignored, imho. Specifically in this case the reason the people came and voted after the canvas post on Commons was because they felt we where being "prudes" when in reality most of the opposes was on technical failures of the criteria (#5 and #7). — raeky  t  22:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * # 5 is always debatable and could always be used or misused to oppose an image. But #7 was fixed during the nomination, since the translation was incomplete. Nothing that has to do with the image itself, it was the article that lacked information. The missing parts were added during the voting progress. --Niabot (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC) This is already too late on the instant someone canvassed this discussion at Commons. This discussion was literally hijacked. The result is bound to be "used" as an argument in Wikimedia & sexual content debate regardless the outcome. Your choice between a no consensus and a will be controversial fail or pass. --KrebMarkt (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record: Three comments dated after this Closure Discussion began were recently added to the voting section. They're dated December 12 (UTC) and are not new votes, but are comments.


 * In partial response to KrebMarkt, sexual content can fit as "best", but it's unlikely when encyclopedic value is needed. It would take a unusual amount of thought to come up with something that would meet. My guess is the successful picture would be controversial on a whole new set of grounds, and I don't know what those would be.


 * In response to Niabot's question to me:


 * On the value of the picture to the article, I don't know enough to comment on that subject, and didn't.


 * On whether this picture should be featured to encourage the making of more pictures of high quality in general, one criterion is encyclopedic value (EV).


 * On whether this picture should be on the Main Page, since that's where we essentially welcome newcomers to Wikipedia's encyclopedic range and depth and invite them to return often, the picture's EV is a criterion, and a very important criterion.


 * This picture mainly tells us that a female can be sexy. It may say something about artistic method, but that's not mainly what most of us see. So the picture, if put on the Main Page, would tell most users almost nothing they aren't seeing several times a day in various advertisements, television shows, streets, offices, and websites. (A Google search for "sexy female" without quotation marks minutes ago offered "19,900,000 results".) So the picture does not tell us anything new about females.
 * It should not tell you that a woman can be sexy. It should tell you that ecchi enforces a sexy look, which is combined with cuteness. It should also tell you that ecchi is on the borderline of erotic art (hopefully it has the same meaning as de:erotik in German language) and pornography. --Niabot (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ecchi is defined most specifically by its subject, and as a subset of the artistic method. Thus, it may not be possible for ecchi to tell us anything new about the subject. While it's possible to draw the female's hair with an extra wave that maybe no one has drawn before, that would be too trivial to have EV. Ecchi would thus join other porn genres, such as porn photography or porn oil paintings, that could hardly add anything to Wikipedia's Main Page encyclopedically.
 * Ecchi is not pornography! In context it tends to comedy. --Niabot (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The picture includes characteristics that suggest being under the age of consent, although not necessarily. The facial proportions are more akin to those of younger children. The hair ribbon is of a size suggesting she's a child. I don't know whether a large ribbon is a fashion accessory among Japanese women, but this picture appears to be of a Westerner, not an Asian, and I don't recall large ribbons being a Western women's style, while the clothing is, so the ribbon's use as a symbol of childishness remains apparent. Sex with children is so widely known as a possibility and a practice—most parents are intensely aware of the possibility—that the picture adds nothing of EV on that point.
 * That concept is called kawaii since the Japanese ideal of beauty is cuteness. Many Japanese characters are actually seen as in Western style. Starting from hair color. The main color of Japanese people is black to brown, anything else is an exception. But in manga and anime any color is used. But thats no problem for the audience. Japanese people still see them as Japanese characters. Same works for The Simpsons. They aren't Chinese, are they? Or did you ever think that they are? The large ribbons/hairbands/... can be seen everywhere and are considered a trademark for different figures. Just have a look at Miku Hatsune, Haruhi Suzumiya, and so on. Also you should take a look at the 100 rules of anime. Note that this rules are exaggerated, but it isn't such far away from reality. Usually only some of this rules apply to a work. At least it's funny to read. --Niabot (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that some women draw ecchi; I'll take your word for that. But this isn't an example of that, and most porn drawings are produced by men, so this picture doesn't add EV even on that point.
 * It does not depend on the artist, neither its nationality, religion or gender. In Japan i would go as far that this is shared 50:50. Since we know many female artists. They even work on eroges (adult games). Itaru Hinoue, known for Kanon (visual novel), Air (visual novel) or Clannad (visual novel) is no exception. --Niabot (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Females can enter many careers, we agree on that, but this one isn't (it doesn't say she's found in other contexts and that would need sourcing), and so, on that point, too, this picture isn't adding EV.
 * This would be misleading since this aspect has nothing to do with ecchi. Also in real life you will have many situation in which you can't decide which profession a woman has. Think on a a day on the street. Can you instantly take a photograph and tell afterwards which profession all the people have? --Niabot (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your "left column" reference seems to be to "Japan simply does not have the stigma or sexual innuendo it does in the United States." Assuming the antecedent, breaking out of the reproduction role is no less perturbing in Japan than in the U.S. and is not justification for this picture through EV.
 * Thats not what i meant, and what you should be able to understand. --Niabot (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Commons English description does say much more than it did. I assume translations will catch up to the English expansion.
 * I asked you during the voting process which information is missing? I got no answer until voting time was running out. --Niabot (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The caption does, or potentially does, add information about something most of us don't know, namely, artistic method. In my case, what I learned was about the greater drawing space it affords. Perhaps I knew that in the past but had forgotten it, so one way or the other it amounted to new knowledge. I thought I was looking at a cruise ship's fence at sea, albeit an unrealistic one (even allowing for artistic license) since she is perpendicular to the tilting ship and normally wouldn't be or she would be engaged with the event of the tilting (e.g., she'd be concerned about falling), and I didn't recognize tree leaves or plant petals until later. But that knowledge of artistic method would also be valid for subjects other than females whom men happen to deem sexy. Dutch angle, for instance, is probably applicable to a great many other kinds of subjects.
 * In dutch angle everything is tilted. And as you should be able to notice she is in motion (turning around). --Niabot (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Much of the caption seems to be about the picture's acceptability to Wikipedia, e.g., that it doesn't have "primary sexual characteristics". I assume that will be edited out of a Main Page–ready caption. Grammatical corrections are also needed. Length may or may not be an issue on the Main Page. Because of likely editing and copyediting, I'm not clear what caption is being proposed for a Main Page use of this picture. The result has to have EV and so the caption's nearly final form is important in judging EV. That's not ready.
 * I asked for support at WikiProject Anime and manga. Lets see what they are able to do. --Niabot (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * EV is thus the key criterion here. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem with that. But you should also have some knowledge about the terms i mentioned. Otherwise i doubt that you are able to vote, or at least to make confident and right decision. The question about the hair and the hair band showed me that your knowledge about manga and anime is close to "zero". No one that knows manga and anime would ever ask this question. --Niabot (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right that my knowledge of manga and anime is almost zero. But most users viewing the Main Page also won't know anime or manga, other than a little unexplained exposure. I voted having the artistic knowledge common to most Main Page users. If the picture's EV requires knowing more about manga and anime, then the caption has to say something substantially more than that those two fields are relevant, although, on the other hand, it doesn't have to be a full-length dissertation.


 * You're also right about a photo of a random stranger telling us nothing about what they do for a living. But that photo wouldn't likely land on the Main Page.


 * One generally edits for one's intended audience. You didn't understand some of what I posted; I could have expounded at greater length to make the case. I didn't understand some of what you posted about anime and manga; but I'm more typical of Main Page readers. The old caption said, "typical elements from manga and anime", and I don't know what in the picture is a typical element of either, so the EV was lacking for most WP readers. The duck picture and caption we previously discussed wasn't written for duck experts and probably wasn't voted on mostly by ornithologists. WP is largely read by nonexperts.


 * Nick Levinson (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thats why i added a detailed Description to the image and also added a link to manga iconography, which shares all basic features with animes (except colors and some motion aspects). But i guess you can expect that someone that is willing to criticize an image should at least try to obtain some basic knowledge. At least he should have read the main articles manga and anime. If he is unsure about one detail he would have the possibility to dig further.
 * Yes you are right that a random picture most likely wouldn't be featured. But it was in response to your demand that a women in a picture should show a profession. You could also have insisted on a apple on a cherry tree. Would make no difference.
 * The intended audience should read the article to find out what they don't know. For the duck example it would mean: "Great, i see a duck. Whats special about her?" After that question the reader is free to choose if he wants to read the article for further information or just pass it by as "another duck", "another drawing", "another map", and so on. The caption should provide him the possibility to get the further information he needs. That are basically links inside the description, since otherwise the description had to be the article itself. --Niabot (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

To the regular FPCers here who are objecting on main page grounds: errmmm, exactly what about Howcheng saying he is inclined to put it on the main page means that it will happen? Promotion or non-promotion should not be the stop-gap. Like most of the rest of us, I'm sure, I have respect for Howcheng and the work he does, but this is still a collaborative encyclopaedia and he does not have "the final and only word". There are venues all over this encyclopaedia just right for discussion and votes about this kind of thing, and the opinion of the community, over whether or not an FP should go on the main page, can be sought. The PotD queue is huge and it will be ages before a newly promoted FP is due its turn, which leaves plenty of time for objections about this to be raised and dealt with, either with Howcheng alone or a wider audience.  Mae din\ talk 10:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I (partially) agree. Like I said, opposing on main page grounds would be acceptable if and only if we take for granted that Howcheng's word on the matter is final; however, I think most of the opposition is on EV grounds. J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with J Milburn, but for me, I oppose for issues with EV and composition, not with it being on the main page.  Spencer T♦ C 22:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why Howcheng's opinion has to set in stone in order for it to be considered. Every time I've discussed the issue of an image being featured on the Main Page at POTD, I've been told that I should bring the issue up here rather than at POTD. And every time I've brought up the issue here, I've been told that I should take it to POTD instead. The Catch-22 has to end somewhere. Kaldari (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As Howcheng said above, it is not the responsibility of the FPC crowd to police the main page. Discuss it with him- if he refuses to discuss it, perhaps there is an issue. J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it is not relevant to discuss here, this is the featured-picture-nomination section where we decide what is and is not a featured picture and on the main page is the "today's featured picture" section. When this whole project was setup wasn't one of the main intents of it was for featuring the picture content on the front page, I would tend to think that was the primary intent of the project? Therefore wouldn't it be highly relevant for that discussion to take place here? Why does it need to take place in a separate sub-project that seems to be cloaked in mystery hidden away in the bowels of the site. — raeky  t  14:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If a major purpose of this project is merely to provide content for TFP, it's hardly clear. J Milburn (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, if that is really the main purpose of WP:FPs, it should be stated clearly somewhere. If it's to be a valid argument for opposing, then it needs to be incorporated into the FP criteria. Until that happens, I agree with Maedin. --Avenue (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the assumption that your work will be featured on the Main Page is one of the main reasons people submit work to FPC (same as with Featured Articles). I always assumed that was what the "Featured" in "Featured Picture Candidate" referred to. 216.38.130.167 (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Featured" refers to quality status, not that it will necessarily go on the main page. For example, featured lists are not displayed on the main page.  Jujutacular  talk 18:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Juju, it's been a few days since the last edit to this page, perhaps you'd like to make the call? J Milburn (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * *Raises hand* Can I? The result seems fairly obvious to me at this point. The only reason I haven't closed it yet is that I haven't been involved with the nom at all. I didn't want to step on anyone's (particularly Jujutacular's) toes. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My toes will be fine :) I really just wanted to open it up for a little more discussion, I'm not keen on closing it.  Jujutacular  talk 16:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This nomination has become thoroughly “skunked”: any result will disappoint a significant number of people. Moreover, a bad odor envelops this nomination due to several lengthy and somewhat heated discussions that only tangentially relate to the nomination. The relation of FPC to POTD, for example, is important, but a FPC nomination should not be the venue for this discussion. All of the attention that this nomination received has made it difficult to judge consensus, especially given the nomination’s mention in a Commons discussion regarding sexual content. Indeed, it seems to me that consensus cannot even occur in this nomination due to the plethora of issues being discussed and the questionable commitment to addressing the image’s merits vis-à-vis the FP criteria. One cannot very well extract the relevant parts of each post and piece them together to make a coherent argument for or against the image. The result, then, must be “no consensus.” The vote is close, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. Some users have raised a legitimate concern about the EV of this image. No one makes a compelling argument for this image’s EV. Because the discussion was derailed rather early by issues unrelated to the FP criteria, the most important question – whether criterion #5 is met – has not been answered satisfactorily. The best course of action, then, is to close this nomination as “not promoted” and return to it at a later date, if someone chooses to re-nominate it. In the meantime, discussions regarding those other issues can take place on FPC Talk or POTD talk. A fresh nomination will allow voters to approach the image without having to sift through a long, partly unrelated discussion. Re-nominating this image will, I hope, give it a fair chance to pass or fail on its own merits, without the weight of issues unrelated to its FPC candidacy. As always, please raise issues on FPC talk rather than on this page. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)