Opposeas not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails valued image criterion 6 (is not well categorized at an appropriate level). As far as I've read, futunari is more about hermaphrodites than transsexuals. Moreover, it should be a dedicated Commons category. I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria, but if you are able to fix this issue and would like me to re-evaluate the image please leave me a message on my talk page. --Myrabella (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As irrelevant. Should we have a scope for all concepts expressed in the different national languages and cultures? Common sense and good taste should prevail here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Funny to realize that the two supports above come from users who are participating in VIC for the first time: one of them with 7 edits all together and the other with an open interest in pornography. Interesting coincidence. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow! I am so hot to such a "pornography". Shut up Alvesgaspar, when you don't know the users. Thanks. Bye. --Alofok (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- Eight edits in Commons and counting (four of them related to this image). BTW newbies are welcome as long as they show some manners. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? also funny, users without arguments try the ad hominem way ... de:Benutzer:Bunnyfrosch 14:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Categorization has been fixed by the nominator => I've removed my oppose under this reason. But I still oppose because if I've understood it well, that image has been created by the nominator. The author doesn't seem to be a Japonese profesionnal published mangaka. So this drawing can't be considered as a pure and genuine example of the genre Futanari. Rather similar reasons have been given to not promote VICs in previous reviews—with rather different scopes (example 1, example 2). --Myrabella (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should remove the VI flag, since it has no value at all and seams not represent the real value of an image or illustration. --Niabot (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but not disturbing in QIC, where the same image is proposed? Seems that the evils of the Pandora's box don't blow with the same strength everywhere. --Myrabella (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The truth is I've opposed arguing with the usual VI criteria as a block because we lack of true defense face this kind of nominations, in our different projects. --Myrabella (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You speak from "defense". Against what evil are you trying to fight, the hard truth and sometimes cruel reality? Don't we build a own perfect world and hide the facts? Overall it sounds very questionable if this is the goal of Wikipedia/Commons and it's projects. --Niabot (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It is not my intention to be offensive but are you really trying to expose the hard truth and sometimes cruel reality with this image? On the contrary, my first impression is that this is a joyful glorification of it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "joyfullness" is part of this image, BUT not because i wanted it to be joyfull. Main reason is that the typical illustration showing (playfull) joy or no joy (rape). There is nothing mentionable between those two schemes. The first scheme derives from the genre Yuri. Which would you choose? Guess this question needs no discussion. --Niabot (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a suspicion of child pornagraphy if I understand well the motives of the delation request, so we must be specially careful here. A more general question is whether we should accept or not nominations of pornographic or explicit sexual content images in the three forums VIC, QIC and FPC, as these places have a significant educational content to younger people, taking up Alvesgaspar's words in FPC talk page where the issue is being discussed. Seizing your words about "the hard truth and sometimes cruel reality", I would say that an adult can be a Marquis de Sade's reader, but shouldn't let his illustrated edition clearly visible on the central table in the main room of his home, when children are around. Whatever we decide (or not), I confirm that I consider this image as a picture inspired by the genre, but not a genuine one. --Myrabella (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for lack of relevance. It's fictional. Like we won't have a scope for each life-form in the Star Trek Universe, we don't need one for every fictional variant of sexuality in Hentai. --Ikar.us (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems that there's someone lusting after weird stickers, cf. this candidature. Also here the image is plain decoration as well as personal interpretation and has therefore no educational value. --Eva K.is evil22:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
