Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan SVG: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:38, 21 May 2008

Wikipe-tan SVG

Reason: One of the reasons for the delisting of the PNG was aliasing. In vector format, the resolution is better.
Articles this image appears in: Moe anthropomorphism, WP:Wikipe-tan
Creator: Original by Kasuga, SVG version by Editor At Large

Support as nominator --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 16:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is this a good example of anything if you stand back from the purported 'personification of Wikipedia'?. I don't find anything about this to be FP material. Mfield (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does not have any encyclopedic value. Muhammad(talk) 18:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- No encyclopedic value, just another Wikipedia image. Not FP certainly. ~Meldshal42_{Hit me}^{What I've Done} 19:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not encyclopedic, and if I did choose to make a personification of WP, it would not be in moe style. Add to that the fact that stating this is a "personification of WP" is totally up to personal interpretation, and likely OR, it all adds up to no FP. Clegs (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OR#Original_images.Geni 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from that page, "images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." this image does propose an unpublished idea: that this picture out of all others, is the personification of WP. Clegs (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking issue with the fact that it is user-created. I'm taking issue with the fact that a) this is a self-reference, and featuring them is usually frowned on, and b) I consider the assertion that this is a "moe personification of WP" to be OR.Clegs (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1)this is not a self reference in the way WP:SELF means. 2)The argument being advanced in this case is that Moe anthropomorphism exists.Geni 23:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, let me clarify. By OR I am saying Original Research

One more concern I have is with ballot stuffing from the AnimeProject users. This was mentioned by several people in the nom for delist, I believe jjron, MER-C and Fir made the best case for delisting it, based on that fact. Please read the delist for a fuller discussion of the reasons it was delisted, quality was only one of several major issues users had with it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/Wikipe-tan_full_length. Clegs (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"ballot stuffing" ummm.Geni 23:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

support see Moe anthropomorphism and the previous complaints have been met.Geni 19:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think this image has what it takes to be promoted, but it definitely has encyclopedic value. It illustrates Moe anthropomorphism well. NauticaShades 21:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ... honestly? No. Doesn't meet size requirements and definitely no real EV. crassic!^[talk] 02:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 *'''support''' see [[Moe anthropomorphism]] and the previous complaints have been met.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 19:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Comment'''. I don't think this image has what it takes to be promoted, but it definitely has encyclopedic value. It illustrates [[Moe anthropomorphism]] well. '''''[[User:Nauticashades|Nautica]]''<font color="black">[[User Talk:Nauticashades|Shad]]</font><font color="black">[[Special:Contributions/Nauticashades|es]]</font>''' 21:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Oppose''' ... honestly? No. Doesn't meet size requirements and definitely no ''real'' EV. '''[[User:Crassic|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#cc6600">crassic]]'''!<sup><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User_talk:Crassic|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup></span> 02:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 <!-- additional votes go above this line  -->
 {{-}}