From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

More Recent Images[edit]

I've provided more recent images for the Western Cosplay section (these are photos that showcase the Convention atmosphere as well rather than Studio Photos of which we already have plenty)

Someone has been vigilantly reverting my edits, assumably the photographer or cosplayer of this photo.

If they do it again, I will be forced to ask for a lock on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Leading picture[edit]

The original lead image
My (JPNEX) replacement

Hi, I think the current picture in the lead is not the most illustrative one on the topic so I replaced it, but User:Niemti reverted this change. The two pictures are on the right. I think the Phoenix convention is obviously a worse choice because

1) it's more crowded, with less clear focus on the cosplayers.

2) one of the two cosplayers in focus is turned away

3) the lighting is bad and the color balance is off (too red), making the picture rather dull

The Japanese replacement is a much clearer picture, it's more striking and it's of Japanese cosplayers - which makes sense as this is where (the modern form of and the very word) cosplay originated. I think most readers would expect a picture of Japanese cosplayers at the top. JPNEX (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It isn't and please stop pushing you own work. (We've seen this before.) The whole point is not to make anyone at all a "face of cosplay". Btw, from technical standpoint ("a much clearer picture, it's more striking"), your photo has a wrong white balance (besides being oversaturated). Here are some of my own most recent photos: [1][2][3][4][5][6] - but guess what, I'm not going to push them (it's Poland, btw). --Niemti (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Wow, that's most unfriendly! Of course I add my own pictures to articles but only when I think they are better than what's currently in place - this is hardly "pushing". If people disagree, I'm happy to discuss it, but opposing it merely because I've added a picture I have myself taken can hardly be supported by the guidelines. While looking for articles to insert my images into, I've many times found pictures which were better than mine, and in those cases I haven't of course made any changes. In this case, however, I do think my replacement goes better with WP:LEADIMAGE than the previous one. The white balance may be a little bit off in mine as well, but it still strikes me as obviously technically better than the previous one, more reprsentative and more interesting. What does everybody else think? JPNEX (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Your pictures are very nice, btw! JPNEX (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it's borderline. In my ever-so humble opinion both are arguably as bad as each other. I honestly agree with your assessment of the current lede image, but think that the positives of said image:
  • Multiple cosplayers in one shot
  • Wide variety of clothing/characters
  • Natural stance and posing
Outweigh the deficiencies.
However, I don't think that your own image is really much better. The quality is better, but it's essentially a headshot, and contains no imagery of the "cos" part of cosplay - the costume. I would have to side with Niemti that on those grounds alone the image is not suitable for the lede - with the proviso that I don't think that means it has no place in the article, only the lede.
Suggested lede replacement
I'd like to see a completely new image if we have to replace it, or a mix-up and one of the already used images replacing it. To my mind the best image on the page is Princess Amidala - it's almost too good, as you could be mistaken for thinking it really is Princess Amidala. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the input, I guess I have to agree. I do see the point in having several different styles of cosplay in one photo, though I don't think the current photo really satisfies this as only two are in focus, and one is turning the other way. I don't think the Princess Amidala picture would be great either though, I mean it's certainly a great shot but it's not the most representative of cosplay. JPNEX (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Seems I already included one of your photos as to illustrate the Japanese etymology. Btw, much of is actually models. Some models are also cosplayers (like in case this one [7] of my recent photos, she's with her own costume and was just hired a booth babe), but many are just regular models who wear what they were given and for example [8] is obviously not even a character costume). IF you guys really want, actually I can post a good picture of a large group on stage or something (speaking of Amidala: 1 week ago I did this [9]). --Niemti (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Many people on a stage sounds like it could look a little too sterile (just my 5c).JPNEX (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Isn't that other picture of mine better for the lead than the current one though? Rather than in ethymology. (giving it the caption suggestion #4 in case it floats away) It shows a duo in full costume. JPNEX (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion #4
Here's a group of Japanese, "body shots". Suggestion 5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPNEX (talkcontribs) 11:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

My propositions (random groups of people, unposed): [10] [11] Or just this: (white balance is screwed but I like it anyway). --Niemti (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The picture you replaced is rather boring and stiff and, as I guessed it might be, sterile. I think the lead image should be more zoomed up. If it includes more than one person (which I don't think is strictly necessary), I think in general there shouldn't be many more than 3, and maybe only torso up. The picture shouldto be immediate and attention-grabbing, and full body shots of a bunch of people standing lifelessly on a stage just doesn't cut it. Also, Niemti, please don't just change the lead image willy-nilly when we are discussing the different options and what to do. If everybody did that, we'd have a revert war in no time. (JPNEXP, not signed it) (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I support the current File:20140118174713IMG 5618 M - Desucon Frostbite 2014 - matiast1.jpg. Good quality, many cosplayers. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This picture has been removed by User:Sleyatx with no rationale a year ago. I am restoring it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC) is not workable[edit]

@302ET:I recently delete a link from "Yahoo Malaysia" news article as there is no such article now. I do not want to go into edit wars. So, please try to look for a better link if possible. Kelvintjy (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Article Evaluation[edit]

Overall this article is very informative for those who want to know more about cosplay in general. I think everything is fairly well organized and easy to understand. There are also a lot of great links to check out for further information. However, while we’re given a better understanding of the practices and technical side of cosplay, I would like to have seen more mention of the participants’ experience. What is it like for the cosplayer in action and how is self expression approached through this hobby?

If anyone were interested in learning more about cosplay on a deeper level, I would suggest checking out "Framing Cosplay" by Alexis Hieu Truong. He addresses gender roles in greater context and how cosplay re-articulates identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElfinOwl (talkcontribs) 03:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@ElfinOwl: Feel free to add [12] to the Further Reading section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

sexual aspects of cosplay[edit]

It seems like this article is deliberately avoiding a discussion of the sexual aspects of cosplay. It may make some people uncomfortable, but it is an obvious omission in an otherwise thorough article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That's because cosplay is not a sexually orientated topic, despite connotations that it may be. In fact, the definition of cosplay is the impersonation of characters - or as the lede currently says "a performance art in which participants called cosplayers wear costumes and fashion accessories to represent a specific character", and has nothing to do with sexuality. Sexual Cosplay is essentially Sexual roleplay and/or Uniform fetishism. The introduction of sexuality into Cosplay by definition excludes it from the article. However, that doesn't mean you don't raise a good point, and I've added the two above links to the "See Also" section, as it's a fair enough assumption. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me for being crass, but trying to add your sexuality into it is kind of awkward. I don't really care what your kink is, YKINMKBYKIOK. If you want to do that, we're gonna have to add fursuit sex to Mascot cause I've met people who want to have sex with someone in a Tony the Tiger costume. That's not what that article is about and not what this article is about either. (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Potential vandalism[edit]

This article has been linked from a forum dedicated to mocking "social justice warriors" [13]. Following the creation of this link on the website reddit at approximately 17:00 14 December 2015 (UTC), four anonymous edits removed content concerned with social justice (edits [14] [15], [16], [17] ). The sections removed primarily referenced blog post. These blog post are relatively academic (on the whole), usually containing the name of the individual publishing the blog post, referencing conferences where the work was presented, and containing references to other literature. However, I'm not very clear on WP:policies and a sections that rely so heavily on ephemeral online sources may be undesirable. Never the less, I'm loath to allow WP:TE to stand, so have reverted these edits for now. LarryBoy79 (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC) (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC) I agree, but to avoid WP:TE, shouldn't we revert to the most concise, relevant, and non-editorialized version of the article? Just because a source is legitimate, doesn't mean it's relevant for a high level overview of a topic.

It is not clear to me that the section is 'editorialized'. It seems like fair game to discuss the social aspects of pop-culture in an academic fashion on a wikipedia page. I'll look into similar articles, but my default opinion is that an article shouldn't be changed in response to a post on reddit LarryBoy79 (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is accessed in thousands of different ways, and attention is drawn to the state of articles in various way as well. There are frequently editing parties where people get together to inject their politics into Wikipedia, for gods' sakes. Judge a person's edit by the quality of the edit, and by their potential conflicts of interest. The fact that a page is being discussed elsewhere, and that editors may come from somewhere else before editing that page doesn't particularly matter. I fail to see how a series of mostly personal cosplay blogs, and in one case someone's deviant art profile in any way constitute reliable or academic sources, but that is beside the point. Rekov (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Ergo, the version of the article prior to 17:00 14 December 2015 (UTC) should be the one that stands, until a non-anonymous editor makes some decision on the content. LarryBoy79 (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The controversial material in question was added recently by a student editor for some kind of project. Such a huge edit like that obviously needs WP:CONSENSUS. A similar problem occurred with another student editor on the Black Lives Matter article a while back. Pinging @Scaleshombre, Jumplike23, and Stabila711: who dealt with that problem on the BLM article. And more unilateral changes occurred with two more student editors on the Orientalism article. Pinging @Blackhat999 and Ryk72: who reverted the problems on that page. An additional unilateral edit by another student editor recently occurred on the Unit 731 page, which I am hesitant to revert. Vivexdino (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the deeper revert, I didn't read quite far enough back. -- ferret (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I certainly have no problem leaving the article in the state it was before the additions. LarryBoy79 (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
So, just to clarify, I was essentially trying to revert to a similar version of the article that Ferret reverted to, but preserve some of the minor changes that Flounder19, Torchiest, and Bilby made. I do feel I got into an edit war with who was trying to preserve the section blanking that occurred after the post on reddit. However, in my mind was attempting to preserve vandalism. Would it have been better form to just do a clean revert to the an earlier version of the article, rather than re-insert the blanked sections? LarryBoy79 (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I pinged the teacher involved and it didn't happen again in our case. The student used the talk page, the second time. --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed the student's User:Dmfielding edits at [18], and I thought they are a fine addition. It seems that they are a member of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Oregon/Feminist Science Fictions (Fall 2015) run by User:Castabile. It would be great if the students and the instructor (pinged now) would comment on this issue. Also, I'd be interested in learning more about why non-vandals may dispute the students additions. There is the issue of WP:UNDUE, and blogs are not the best sources, through blogs by academics are usually acceptable. In [19] I can't ID the author, so it's a fail, [20] is a bit better through the author is still semi-anonymous; I don't have time to do a more detailed review (really, it should be the course instructor's job - I have my own students whose work I have to analyze and grade), but overall I don't think a wholesale revert was needed. Some pruning, perhaps, but some of the content seems valid (if, perhaps, it should be condensed to one section instead of several). I'd also expect there should be some proper peer reviewed sources, which the student should look into, rather then rely on blogs - use Google Scholar/Books, not just Google...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the problems were probably mostly WP:UNDUE and failure of using WP:Reliable sources. In any case, the "feminist science fictions" student should discuss their edits per "BOLD, revert, discuss" after introducing some controversial material. On another note, as User:Jumplike23 pointed out, some other students' edits have been unconstructive, such as this one at courage. Some of the edit could be restored as good faith, but it's going to need some major pruning. I'd wait for other editors to weigh in. Vivexdino (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The 07:38, 11 December 2015 is the worst revision of this article. All of the information within is largely irrelevant to cosplay as a whole and is politically leaning towards the neofeminism ideology of females being objectified. Even if that were true, the article makes no mention of male cosplayers. The revision in question also reeks of feminist rhetoric, such as the Bechdel test. The cited article does not even mention the words "bechdel test." In fact, ~60% of movies pass the Bechdel Test, so where is the claim "additionally, [manga, anime, comic books, cartoons, video games, live-action films, and television series] produce far fewer female protagonists and even fewer of them pass the Bechdel test" even coming from?. Until a full consensus can be reached on the state of the article, the sections in question should not be re-added without a serious rewrite. Dr. Doctor 12:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrDoctor13 (talkcontribs)

I believe there is some consensus for including the least controversial and most factual changes. I'm pretty happy with this version, as I had made efforts to prune the highly opinionated additions while keeping the essential details. I'd also be fine with including the racebending part that was edit warred over a bit, as long as it doesn't link incorrectly to the unrelated article. —Torchiest talkedits 16:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@Torchiest:I'm with you on your linked edit. Seconded. Dr. Doctor (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Torchiest's linked version, it contains no problems as far as I can see. Vivexdino (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This part seems completely irrelevant to the article: "Limits such as level of attractiveness, body size, and disability often restrict and confine how accurate the cosplay is perceived. Authenticity is measured by a cosplayer's individual ability to translate on-screen manifestation to the cosplay itself. Some have argued that cosplay can never be a true representation of the character. Instead, it can only be read through the body, and that true embodiment of a character is judged based on nearness to the original character form.[23]" In particular, what is the relevance of what "some have argued"? People argue many things. It is obvious that the accuracy of the cosplay depends on the physical characteristics of the cosplayer, and that nobody can be exactly the same as a virtual character. It strikes me as whole unnecessary meandering fluff that does not benefit the article. (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that whole paragraph really, I could take it or leave it. I hadn't done anything to it yet in my earlier edits. But that quoted part definitely runs afoul of WP:WEASEL. —Torchiest talkedits 04:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Since it seems like we have a decent consensus to keep the additions with some pruning, I'm planning to revert this back to the trimmed version I linked above when the editing restriction expires tomorrow, unless anyone has any other objections. —Torchiest talkedits 18:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Yup, that seems good to me. Vivexdino (talk) 08:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@Torchiest and others: thank you for constructive comments here, I agree with the consensus here. As a fellow educator, I do apologize for the instructor and student, who as it is too common are clearly not monitoring this talk page, and are not active enough (nor vested in the article's fate enough) to participate in the discussion here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 December 2015[edit]

Looks like there's an extra line break before the "Gender roles" section. That's all. Thanks. (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problem. It may be a result of the specific width of your browser combined with the flow around the images on the page. There is no extra space in the wikicode though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Myrtle Rebecca "Mō-rō ‘yō" Douglas Smith Gray Nolan[edit]

I just reverted the last edit by User: regarding the 'founder of cosplay'. While this may well be true (there has been online coverage to this effect) [21] I don't think that it's appropriate in the first section ahead of general information about cosplay. Perhaps the content if rewritten would be suitable somewhere else in the article. Go82102 (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cosplay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cosplay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


This article could really use a section on the antecedents of cosplay. For example, in 18th/19th century masked balls it was common for participants to dress up as *specific characters* like Queen Marie Antoinette, not only as generic figures like pirates and fairies. How this developed into dressing up as figures from mass media and how cosplay allows for expanded embodiment of the character needs to be articulated, as otherwise it seems as if cosplay magically appeared from nowhere. Historical context please! (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Getting relevant sources is the hard part. However, I've started a history section by re-working some of the existing text and adding some stuff about early Worldcon costuming. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It goes back much further than that. Late medieval (Tudors in the UK) pageantry made much use of costumed players like this, usually with classical themes. I wouldn't be surprised if the Romans were the first. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
    True, but I don't have the sources (or, at the moment, the time to find them) to describe that. I've added a short summary of two other articles for context and marked the section for expansion. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    NB: The history is also missing later information from the invention of the word to the present day. It apparently became very popular in Japan in the late 20th century but I can't find much detail about that period, nor its re-introduction to the US and the rest of the world. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr Skygack[edit]

I've just spent some time looking for sources to corroborate whether Skygack qualifies as the first modern cosplay - and they're already there in the text:

#<ref name="io9 19 September 2013">{{cite news|last=Miller|first=Ron|title=Was Mr. Skygack the First Alien Character in Comics?|url=|accessdate=20 September 2013|newspaper=[[io9]]|date=19 September 2013}}</ref> #<ref name="AshcraftPlunkett">{{cite book|title=Cosplay World|pages=6–11|first=Brian|last=Ashcraft|first2=Luke|last2=Plunkett|publisher=Prestel Publishing|year=2014|isbn=9783791349251}}</ref>

Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cosplay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Recurring problems with lead image and analysis of all images[edit]

Discussion of current images[edit]

This article seems to be a magnet for some people replacing the lead image with little discussion. Setting aside the usual 'personal preference', I think we also have to deal here with aspects of vanity - some of those pictures can be added by individuals with COI (either the cosplayers themselves or people connected with them). This was discussed several times in the past, and I think we have the consensus for at the very least ensuring that the lead image is not an image of a single individual, but of a group. With regards to other pictures included here, the issue is more difficult, but we should try to focus on gathering images that are representative of the topic in general and individual sections in particular. What is representative is of course open for more discussion but I think we should have at least one of the following:

The above is only for current pictures, many others were included in the past. It would look even better in a table. Anyway, I think we should try to add past pictures to this, and then see how we can balance it.

Few final thoughts: picture quality matters (through not too much, since most readers don't go beyond thumbs). Illustrating many aspects help, and so does explaining this in a good caption.

Ping editors previously engaged in those discussions: @JPNEX, Niemti, Chaheel Riens, KyuuA4, Sanatherandom, JIP, Dogcow, Eric Burns, Canoe1967, Andy Dingley, and Cogiati: of course anyone else is welcome to chip in too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a fan of the current lead. Too many figures, too small, too big a black stage background. I like the idea of the lead being a group shot to show some variety, just not this one. Maybe a group of 5, so they're not becoming too small individually. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: I am totally fine replacing this with a better group shot if we can find a better one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
First of all, I think these images File:Mileena Space City Con.jpg and File:Cosplay (20242487348).jpg do not meet quality requirements (too blurry) and need to be deleted from the article.--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't delete them, but they shouldn't be used (too poor quality). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I have purposefully avoided re-reading my comments regarding the previous changes, but I'm willing to bet that my opinion has changed somewhat, as the last discussion was a few years ago (I think).
Firstly, I disagree with Александр Мотин regarding File:Mileena Space City Con.jpg. In this case the cosplayer is not the focus (no pun intended) of the image, but the photographer is. That particular image is intended to show that photography and posing is an accepted part of the Cosplay phenomena - the caption makes this clear: "Professional photographers working with Mileena cosplayer for a chroma key studio photoshoot". I have no real opinion over the second image, but if pushed agree that it's probably not the best type of image to be included.
My opinion regarding the images - especially the lede image - is that the only essential criteria they have to meet is "do they represent the article subject to the best of their ability?" In answer to that I agree with Andy Dingley regarding the stage image - yes it shows variety, but only if you squint, and even then not very well.
I would be against using the File:Ciri_Cosplay_(The_Witcher_3_Wild_Hunt)_•_2.jpg image as a lede for several reasons: The character and show are not well known enough for a casual reader to recognise them, and it's a headshot only, there is no real costume to be seen - an important part of cosplay. To that end, I suggest that an image such as File:Padme2_(1).jpg, or File:Lara-Croft-by-Tatiana-DeKahtar.jpg are used as the lede. Both are of well-recognised characters (Lara Croft more so, I admit) and both show a costume in detail as well.
ISTR that I advocated the Padme image last time as well, but we decided against it for some reason. Fair enough.
From a personal point of view, I like File:Ginny Weasley.jpg, mainly because it's a well framed non-anime image, but probably not esoteric or full costume enough for the lede. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Александр Мотин, Andy Dingley, and Chaheel Riens: I generally agree with Chaheel. The first image has an interesting focus, even if the quality is average. If anyone can find a better image showing professional photoshot of a cosplayer, we can consider replacing it, until that point, I think it can do. File:Cosplay (20242487348).jpg is one of the weaker images and doesn't really show anything that unique - generic female fantasy attire. We could likely find a better technical quality, and the image doesn't really fill any particular niche except a generic type of a cosplay. I am also ok with moving the Ciri image down or removing it, and out of the two other single character images I think Lara Croft is better (technical, and likely a better known character).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Chaheel Riens and Piotrus: Do not hesitate to use these images for costume demontration:
File:Ciri Cosplay (The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt) • 3.jpg --> File:Ciri Cosplay (The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt) • 4.jpg --> File:Ciri Cosplay (The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt).jpg
As you can see the whole costume of Ciri is made in compliance with the original one in the game. And even eye color is the same as the character has in the game. I have got reasonable doubts that cosplayer of Lara Croft File:Lara-Croft-by-Tatiana-DeKahtar.jpg has authentic costume. Frankly speaking it is far from be authentic (check Google images). The eye color of Lara Croft isn't blue. These images of Ciri cosplay have very big advantage towards the other ones - their notability (WP:N) confirmed by reliable sources at least like Gamespot [22] (Alexa global rank - 687 [23]) and Nerdist [24] (Alexa global rank - 5368 [25]) and rated like "excellent". I have no idea why you think that less quality images should replace notable and professional ones in this article.--Александр Мотин (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think we differ over our intepretation of notability. While I have no doubt that the Ciri images are notable and have been covered in popular media the actual character is not well known - a casual reader who glances at the cosplay page will not know who Ciri is, but they will know instantly who Lara Croft is, even if the eye colour is wrong. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: Lara Croft's costume is also wrong along with inadvertence to the look of Lara while costume (and its authenticity, of course) is very important part of the article as you said above. For now I may conclude that Ciri photos (you may choose one you like) are professional (high quality image, authentic costume, sword, scar on face, hair, eye color etc.) and notable. And I don't see any reason why one of them cannot be included to article. --Александр Мотин (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
(e/c) It may be wrong, but that does not make it bad cosplay. Lara Croft is more notable than Ciri, so by default a cosplay of Lara Croft is more notable to the average Wikipedia reader. This alone makes the Lara Croft images more appropriate. I'm not saying that the Ciri images are not appropriate for the article somewhere else, only that they are not the best representation of the article subject, which is what shoudl be considered for the lede. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The inappropriate image of Lara Croft's cosplay (reasoned above) is bad choice for the best representation of the article subject to my opinion. And even if Lara Croft as heroine is more notable than Ciri it doesn't mean that you can place such inappropriate images to the article while the article subjest is about costume (as you said above and I totally agree).--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Both images are valid, Ciri as a professional cosplay endorsed by the copyright holders, while Lara is presumably more amateur. We could, I am sure, find a picture of a professional, endorsed Lara model too - through I am not sure we have one under a free license at commons:Category:Cosplay of Lara Croft. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of former images[edit]

I will post some comments about former/proposed images in this section shortly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC) The following images have been either present in the article or suggested on talk. Here are my thoughts on them:

That's for images with thumbs on this discussion page. Analyzing each image that ever appeared in the article would take few hours just to list them, so I will just list whatever caught my attention when I looked at the half-yearly (summer/winter) snapshots of this page. It also shows that some decent images were removed with no rationale. A lot of the first images have been deleted. First surviving ones are from ~2006

What's my conclusion? Many mediocre pictures are added, survive for few months or even yeas, them rotate out. This is certainly something to put an end to. At the same time, same happens with high quality, interesting pictures. Several of the ones linked above should IMHO be restored. I think we need to chose the best of those pictures, plus new contenders, and then add a rule for this page that any change to the pictures needs to be discussed on talk. The free style adding and removing pictures on a whim needs to end. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed images[edit]

I'd also like to add this image into the mix - File:Tekkoshocon_2010_cosplayer_with_Mahora_Academy_Middle_School_for_Girls_winter_uniform_from_Negima.jpg, which amuses me, because it's so realistic it was actually a part of the Catholic school uniform for several months before being removed (by yours truly). Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

And yes, I'm aware of the provenance of the image. Irony, no? Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
You mean it was part of that article's page? Ha. However, I'd say this picture's quality is problematic: a bit fuzzy face, noisy background. While I do think we should have a picture of a 'Japanese schoolgirls', I think we can find better. Sadly, commons:Category:Cosplay of students is underpopulated. I'd chose group File:Cosplayers of Mio Akiyama, Yui Hirasawa, Tsumugi Kotobuki and Azusa Nakano, K-On! at FF18 20110731.jpg or File:FF21 cosplayers of Yui Hirasawa, Azusa Nakano, and Ritsu Tainaka 20130216.jpg instead, through I hope we could find even better. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

If pictures of male cosplayers are wanted ("under-represented in our article" above), then I think these are quite good photos:

At least one of them might have a place. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)