Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/JackXArik.png

Yaoi image
Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2011 at 05:17:37 (UTC)
 * Reason:I think this should qualify as a featured picture as it is a tactful representation of the subject matter, Yaoi (also known as boys love), which as noted by the article is "female-oriented fictional media that focus on homoerotic or homoromantic male relationships". The image is of high resolution and good artistic quality. Although this is rightfully not a FP criteria, it should also be noted that the image is featured at Commons. As a side note, it appears that this image would be one of the first anime and manga related FPs. I am aware that the nomination could be quite controversial.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Yaoi (lead image)
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Artwork/East Asian art (could theoretically be put in Featured pictures/Artwork/Others)
 * Creator:Sen Cross, uploaded by Don-kun


 * Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just for clarification, this is not by a notable artist? Secondly, are Copic markers and pencil crayons really typical media for this style of artwork? J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sen Cross appears to be a volunteer/employee with Animexx, a group for the promotion of Japanese animation in Germany. Art styles vary heavily in Japanese animation (like in Western animation). A look through the manga-related categories in commons shows rather plain computer assisted drawings (such as this) and more detailed drawings (such as this. I will request feedback from from WP:ANIME regarding the different art styles used in Japanese drawings, both fan art and commercial productions. I would assume that works meant to be sold en masse for profit would use a simpler style. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have requested feedback. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: While uses of crayon pencils are certainly less common, use of Copic markers is extremely common (I would say they are even the unofficial standard, given how many artists there use them). I suspect the reason why crayon pencils are used less is because they produce a less-even coverage than do markers, and therefore make the reproduction of the work slightly more difficult, especially when it comes to turning it into animation. Markers provide a smoother appearance, more in keeping with what you see in most animation coloring. That said, this image is typical and accurate in general appearance to many anime and manga images released by professional artists in Japan, and I see no issues with it being made a featured image as it is very well done and high quality (as Commons has already recognized). It is free, so that makes it very valuable in an area where high quality free images are extremely hard to come by. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 17:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I believe it meets the criteria, it might be deemed unsuitable for picture of the day, but that is an entirely separate issue. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The character on the right looks like a woman to me (or at best androgynous), so I think it's not the best illustration of the genre. (Correct me if I'm wrong). Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted above and in the article, the genre is generally targeted at women; as such, I don't think a "bear" would be well accepted. The Yaoi article notes that stories are often "adolescent romance[s]", which would imply a level of androgynoussness(sp?). Also, the image itself is of the shōnen-ai variety, which involves "beautiful boys in love". As such, I think somewhat androgynous characters would be common in the genre/subgenre. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Depictions of the partners in shonen-ai/yaoi are discussed at length in this article - androgyny is part of the history of the genre. --Malkinann (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As mentioned by Crisco and Malkinann, the androgyny is very common in yaoi manga as it is seen as "less threatening". ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 03:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Vanishingly low EV without any particular related manga as a source. Brand meister  t   00:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The educational value (I'm assuming that's what "EV" stands for here) is that it accurately depicts one aspect of the yaoi genre. As for your second comment, if it was a derivative of a specific manga, we couldn't use it because it wouldn't be a free image (and would be a copyright violation). The whole point here is that it is an original work which has the features of one category of manga, and is released under a free license. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 03:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (EV is encyclopedic value). It is an accurate representation of the genre; requiring it to be from a specific manga series does not seem to be one of the criteria. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yaoi has a limited number of specific devotees, the general public would be hardly interested. Brand meister  t   21:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't relevant. If something is notable enough for an article, or fits well into one, then it is notable enough for a featured picture. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I also doubt that the general public would be interested in a species of shrubs from Western Australia but that did not prevent Banksia brownii from becoming a featured article. General interest does not appear to be a criteria.--70.24.215.48 (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that your claim about this being of little interest to "the general public" is not really a particularly good argument against featuring this. I am concerned about the fact that, so far as I can see, we have no reliable source tying this work/artist to this genre. Yes, it's free, but that doesn't mean we need to feature it. J Milburn (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted above, Sen Cross is a member of Animexx, which promotes anime in Germany. He does mainly freelance stuff, from what I can gather from his profile. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- As with all other works of art nominated to FPC (including Mona Lisa), I'm not sure what are we are really trying to feature here: the artistic quality, the technical quality of the digital reproduction (not applicable here, I suppose) or anything else? And why should we use different criteria for assessing this particular picture, like being an excellent illustration of a certain manga genre? Do we feature a painting of van Gogh for its EV in illustrating the Impressionism? In the absence of objective evaluation criteria, I use my personal taste and oppose. Nothing special, really, other than the slight erotic/forbidden touch -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted above, a high-quality free image from this genre is quite difficult to find, which would make it different than impressionism. As also noted above, it includes styles common to the genre (androgyny, Copic markers), as well as another one I'll add here: one of the partners being a "uke" or receiver, generally the more androgynous one. Regarding the illustration of styles, this just-promoted nude was supported mainly on representing the medium and the artist, this was for representing the subject, as was this; as I have indicated above, and has been supported by several editors, the image is an accurate representation of the genre (styles, themes, relationship between the characters) which gives it a higher EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is no wow, nothing visually special about this picture. Not pleasing to the eye. — stay ( sic ) ! 08:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The art style is not pleasing, or the subject material? Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Both. — stay ( sic ) ! 08:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... yet per the criteria, "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing" Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Not always" doesn't mean every time. I still oppose. — stay ( sic ) ! 09:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Crisco and Nihonjoe have made very convincing arguments for its EV. The complaints about aesthetics don't really make any sense. A good representative image of the genre is going to look like this. Otherwise, it would lose its EV. I think the image caption could be extended to include brief comments on angrogyny and copic markers, since those seem to be noteworthy features of the image. Fallingmasonry (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support A good illustration for the term and for the drawing technique. It shows what needs to be seen to understand the style and the topic. --Niabot (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)