Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Futanari.png-2

File:Futanari.png, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2011 at 19:43:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Futanari.png Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Futanari.png

•  Info An illustration for the japanese term and genre futanari, depicting two figures in two common variants (view article for more information).
•  Support -- Niabot (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Paddy (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support perfect illustration of this topic. alofok* 19:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good for illustrating the related article? Sure, I guess. A supremely high quality illustration that we think represents the very best of Commons educational content? Not a chance. Steven Walling 02:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "Not a chance", even so it is used in multiple articles and even in Japanese wikipedia (see article). Of course it can't have educational value if it comes to Steven Walling. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Like I said, useful for illustrating related articles. That doesn't make it among the best images on all of Commons. Steven Walling 07:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose, per your own request. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Niabot, you have not the right to eliminate other users' votes. This is the third and last warning, next time the incident will be reported to AN/U. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't even care, since its strongly clear that this vote has nothing to do with the image itself and should be banned from FPC. But use your own rules, if you are the Jesus of FPC. Let us hope that i don't find some wood and some nails. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
      • It has to do with your childish inconsistent behaviour. You throw a temper tantrum because a piece of artwork of yours is about not to get recognized as one of the finest pictures Commons has to offer, claiming you don't want any of your productions to be featured here, ever, because the reviewers are unintelligent, then submit another one less than 24 hours afterwards. About the picture : per Steven Walling, exactly. If it is a good illustration of a certain type of japanese art, it should be nominated as a valuable picture, not as a featured picture. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 00:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
        • You got some things wrong. You should look at the events that happened before this nomination. (It's a long story, so if you want to hear more about it, than ask me on my discussion page). In short: It was a pun related to previous events. But i will tell you one short story about this nomination. Actually it was nominated by me half a year ago (or even longer). Alvesgaspar was so "friendly" to remove it with this edit, even before the first vote. Claiming that FPC has to be "family friendly". But there is no such rule. Instead we have policies that explicitly state that Commons is not censored. If this explanation leaves open questions, than refer to Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas or ask me on the right place for further discussion. --Niabot (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes I did remove the nomination. And immediately posted a thread in the talk page ([1]) explaining why and asking for the consensus of the community. Much later, a proper discussion was held on this matter and a conclusion reached that porno images should be treated as any other nom. That is why I did not protest against the present nomination. It would have been more honest to refer to the whole story. By the way, please stop with the personal attacks and jokes against my person. I do not allow them and enough is enough. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
          • It was already decided by COM:PS. So there was no reason to discuss at all, what the discussion proved again. Don't mind if i call you a diva. --Niabot (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
            • I do mind. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support technical perfect illustration, usable for articles. FPC should not be a board for moralizing. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • My objection is not about morals. The Internet is chock full of porn which is just a few keystrokes away. This image is just fine for an article about weird Japanese porn. But it's not among the absolute best illustrations on all of Commons. It's not even the best compared to similar images such as this. Steven Walling 07:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • As the artist of both images i have to disagree, but this your opinion. --Niabot (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Steven Walling: Both images can not be compared with regard to their content. Technical I see it the same level. Your judgment "weird Japanese porn" shows impressively that your opinion is very well moral. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support good and high quality. If there is a issue of moralizing, this is another issue that should discussed in a general topic about art etc. Ggia (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support If I liked to educate myself about futanari, I'd love to be educated with such illustration. It is both high quality and educational for me and it doesn't matter that its educational value is limited to one topic only. Masur (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I haven't seen my vote... it's repeated below Masur (talk)
•  Oppose per Steven Walling -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Good work. --Mile (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Follows the Commons policy on nudity nicely and a decent illustration.--Snaevar (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Nothing featurable or even interesting here beyond the explicit pornographic content. Even the educational purpose of the image and its relation with the Japanese word is contested in here. I also protest against the obvious vote canvassing, which is contrary to the spirit of Wikimedia and this forum. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• You don't want to use a comment from Herostratus, known to be on a mission, as an argument - right? You dare to speak about vote canvasing? --Niabot (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose--Biser Todorov (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose There is no merit in featuring it. If you disagree, you may find here some stuff that is of equal value GerardM (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I hope you did not make an error and wanted to refer to this --Niabot (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Not really, then again, consider the use of this GerardM (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I did today and the days before. At the end i was always happy with this moving picture inside the frame. --Niabot (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support per Wladyslaw. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 18:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral IMO this particular subject need not be pornographic, there is such a thing as tasteful nudity. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 01:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I could have done it that way. But actually there is that very strong connection to hentai. Displaying it like you said would be actually further away than acceptable for this topic in modern media. You could try an simple image search for the term "futanari", group all image together and put a line of good consent in the middle. In this case you would have to admit, that it is nearly harmless in comparison. --Niabot (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support If I liked to educate myself about futanari, I'd love to be educated with such illustration. It is both high quality and educational for me and it doesn't matter that its educational value is limited to one topic only (Why my vote wasn't kept when the voting page was moved?) Masur (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Must have been an edit conflict with me. I didn't actually moved the page, since the FPC-Bot works on "article age" basis. "Save moving" would not prevent him from closing the nomination permanently. Sorry for that. --Niabot (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Support, high quality work that is fully featurable. At every person that has a critic about the hair colours: those colours are a code for the mood and abilities of the depicted figure. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Elfhelm (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose The girl on the left hasn't testicles. This is not normal.--Citron (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

  That's the topic of it. Please try to unterstand. alofok* 20:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

  Please read the article futanari before voting. Both variants are common and therefore displayed inside this image. Some examples from the artbook Futachan: with testicles, without testicles. Even two or more penises are common. --Paddy (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

  Interesting. When you make breast implants, you make only one breast?--Citron (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

  Please read the image description. It clearly says that it depicts two variants --Niabot (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

  I'm sorry. I don't know read German clearly.--Citron (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

  The information is avilable (in english) inside the description page. But take a look at the first info line under the image on this page. It is also there. Its stated inside the imagecaption of the article Futanari. Its also present inside the text of the english article. In short: You missed four chances to get this obvious information. To cite Dieter Nuhr: [2] In english: "If you don't have a clue: just shut up." --Niabot (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

  I'm french, what would I do on the English article? You just add it in the description page. But in fact, nothing changes : you ejaculate without testicles? The only encyclopedic value is not even respected... --Citron (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

  Citron I am sorry I must tell you there is no Easter bunny. And second the images are not a reflection of the real world! Sorry --Paddy (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

  Niabot requested that someone would post this fro him. So I do:

  I already told User:Citron that futanari "exists" with and without testicles. Now he claims that it would impossible to release sperm without testicles and that he can only read french, while writing comments in english. [3] Could some make it clear to him, that futanari are able to release sperm even if they don't have testicles? Actually they can release a lot of it. It's a fictional topic and Citron's wording is strongly provocative.

  Common artworks from Makuro, Bosshi (Ask Ray Circle), Maru Nana, Yn Red, Behind Moon (Circle), Maru Retsu, Mimana Orimoto, Fanatic Fetish, Abu, Takumi Torigoe (Remora Works Circle), Kaguya Gekka (Urabata Circle), Shimakaze, Ubanis, Mofuringu, Hyji, Itoji, Shii Kiya, Harthnir, Masato Mutsumi, Ddal, Jinjin, ...

  Since you Citron seem incapable of delivering a valid argument I suggest you withdraw your vote. --Paddy (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

  Citron seems not only incapable in defending his own accusations made to this image. But also has the chutzpah to revert [4] without delivering new facts. --Paddy (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

  @Citron: veuillez noter que le liquide séminal possède plusieures origines, les testicules sont l'origine uniquement que pour entre 2 à 5 pourcent du volume total d'une éjection. La plus grande partie provient de la prostate (25 à 30%) et des vésicules séminales (65 à 75%), ce qui d'une part signifie qu'un homme peut être parfaitement capable d'ejaculer sans testicules et d'autre part s'est déjà vu dans l'histoire: les castrats "pouvaient avoir des relations sexuelles adultes (à l'exception de la production de spermatozoïdes)" (citation de l'article). Quelques informations supplémentaires en ce qui concerne le liquide séminal sont disponible (malheureusement en anglais ;-) ) sur l'édition anglophone: Semen#Composition_of_human_semen. Salutations, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

  Why did you write in French? I understand english very well, I only said that I prefer read the articles French than English, because french is my mother tongue. As to your little lesson, you're learning me nothing. Besides, you're wrong on some points : without testicles, no testosterone. Without testosterone, the seminal vesicle and the prostate undergo involution. So, virtually nothing comes out. Regards--Citron (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

  Doesn't change the fact that this topic is not bound to actual human anatomy. It is a fictional topic / genre in which females or futanari can even get pregnant without having any testicles involved. In Dulce Report from Behind Moon, they even get pregnant on their own, while all futanari in this work don't have testicles. I thought that this fact should also be included inside the french article. To check it, i translated it with google and it did a relatively good job. What i read inside the article, the given facts, was horrible. I don't know who wrote it, but it already starts with an incorrect introduction, mixes terms at will and includes many wrong facts. It also has no sources. Maybe it should be deleted and rewritten. You (referring to french authors) would have to rewrite it anyways. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 22:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Steven Walling. Totodu74 (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --AngMoKio (座谈) 08:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support high EV, very good quality illustraion at in this point surely one of the best on Commons. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose pornographic content--Umnik (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read our fundamental rules, which also apply to FPC: COM:PORN, COM:CENSOR -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 20:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There was no precedent that such a picture would be FP.--Umnik (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

At some time any kind of picture had no precedent. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose pornographic content --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Please also read our fundamental rules, which also apply to FPC: COM:PORN, COM:CENSOR --Paddy (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Support per Steven Walling and per Umnik. Disgusting. --Saibo (Δ) 18:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Multichill (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

  why if I may ask? --Paddy (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

  Paddy: Just give it up. It's a well known "face". Every question will just be a waste of time. He will never express his true reasons to oppose. He did not on "Featured Pictures" on WP:EN. Why should he do it commons? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 22:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

  You're aggressive comment is not useful for the project and the discussion here. And it's not your first aggressive contribution. You present artwork of your own and want to get it judged. So you have to accept that some people dislike it. --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

  I consider the aggressive chasing of users who opposed your nominations (like me) very annoying and intimidating. Please stop it right now. Multichill (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose. Run of the mill anime porn. Not among the best work on Commons, and not appropriate for featuring anyway. Before you direct me to COM:CENSOR (as if I had never seen it before), please note that the scope policy concerns deleting files, not featuring them. What files we choose to feature is an editorial decision, not a policy decision. Kaldari (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No need to tell me. I already know that. But giving "pornographic content" as the only reason does not show the same amount of courage as you did. They could have written "Sorry, I dont like pornography to be featured on commons. I appreciate your efforts..." or something alike. But giving obviously false statements (wrong hair color, testicles issue) is under my line. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 01:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose Technically very nice, but I also feel uncomfortable when looking at this. Also the lady with left hair has a her right arm shorter than the left one. The other lady looks to has her right leg amputated - Benh (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Is not notable in its own right, of high artistic merit, of high historic merit or of high illustrative merit. --Matthew Proctor (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to FPC -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 11:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose While this has every right to be on Wiki Commons, I'm not seeing a featured picture here. This is meant to titillate and perhaps stir controversy. --Calibas (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Great job with svg. Not easy and good illustration Rastrojo _(D•ES) 23:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose as others above. Yann (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 16 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)