# Talk:Bowsette

Actually, Bowsette's design was first featured in a japanese hentai manga titled "Kameochi Momohime", by Mizuryu Kei, released on April 2018. Shouldn't we add a reference to that Magegg (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

That's something completely else and seems to revolve around Bowser mentally corrupting Peach vs. Bowser becoming Peach. It's not mentioned in any reliable source and tying it into this would probably constitute WP:ORIG.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The design is the same, I don't think is fair to consider Ayyk92 the "creator" of the character as he simply copied Kei's original design from the manga. Magegg (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a basic enough design that the majority of artists making a Bowser-inspired Peach would independently have ended up at something similar. Unless you have a source saying that Ayyk92 was basing their design on that porn manga, it's original research to tie the two together.--Alexandra IDVtalk 14:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
There has been various other forms of female Bowser transformation art prdating Ayyk (such as Bliss'd Bowser by Ian Samson) as well as Peach to Bowser transformation art (such as Peach, Queen of the Koopas by Mr-DNA). However, Ayyk's comic is what pushed the popularity of Bowsette in the first place. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 21:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The article should make some mention of the fact that a "Lady Bowser" has existed in the fan community for years now. Granted the Super Crown power up and this specific general design did not, it has more or less simply legitimized a pre-existing concept in the fanbase. Although past fan creations were fan fiction designs such as a daughter of Peach and Bowser, or a sister, mother, and so forth. What sets Bowsette as unique is that it is a "Peachified" Bowser using an item that Nintendo its self came up with.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:DFC0:C5:55FC:8752:322B:485E (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC) 

It only took 9 days for Bowsette to become a good article, from its inception as a redirect to becoming an article two days after the redirect was created to being promoted to good article status yesterday (according to UTC). This might be a new record and it's impressive how fast this was promoted to good article status. 344917661X (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@344917661X: I don't think it's a record as I've seen some War related noms basically get GA status two days after the article was created but the speed of development given the newness of the topic is something participating editors can be proud of. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@344917661X: Dance, Voldo, Dance got to GA shortly after it was written, same with MissingNo. so it's not that uncommon.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. 344917661X (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

In nearly six months of fairly close study of the GA process this is one of the more unusual reviews in that it was claimed by one reviewer but suddenly passed by a different reviewer as a quickpass. I do not think this article should have passed in its current state. In doing a quick glance of the article, if I had been reviewing, i would have had issues with the LEAD (especially the never-ending first sentence and with some of the sources used. I think community review is a ghost town and try and avoid sending things that way but given the fact that Nova Crystallis and DannyMusicEditor both expressed interest in reviewing this but didn't do so, perhaps this would be a case where it could be useful. Nova and/or Danny would you be interested in working together in a community GAR to review this article against the criteria? If not I will do an individual GAR. Pinging Vami IV as previous reviewer and Kung Fu Man as nominator. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

No objections from me. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
First of all, Vami_IV, can you ask permission in the future if you want to take one of these? You literally just completely usurped the reviewer that had chosen this article not even 24 hours before. It's one thing if they've been MIA for a week or two, or longer, but I and Nova Crystallis don't really think what you did was acceptable, especially without asking anyone. dannymusiceditor  oops  05:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Second of all, yes, I can lend my assistance to the best of my ability. My experience is in music but I'll speak up if I see anything. dannymusiceditor  oops  05:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I'll admit it was weird, but @Barkeep49: what sources are an issue for you? I might as well tackle any concerns here now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


### Bowsette
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 Result: Delist for lacking stability. Other issues were corrected overthe course of the GAR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC) 
I will be conducting a more detailed review as part of this process but I have initial concerns about good article criteria 1b (specifically with the LEAD), 3b (specifically some of the sources not being RS), issues around criteria 6 (copyright status of images used), and possibly criteria 5 (this article might not yet be stable). More detailed comments will be left below. Pinging @Vami IV, Kung Fu Man, DannyMusicEditor,  and Nova Crystallis: as others who might have review comments or otherwise be interested in this community GAR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

As original reviewer, I would like to admit fault for not conducting as thorough review as I should have. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Can I just express my confusion here as to why one article needs 4 reviewers for a GAN? Because essentially this is just a redo of a GAN. Probably would have been better to have been bold and just reopened the review instead? As for the sources, again, which are the problem?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Kung Fu Man: I get what you're saying. First a community GAR can have as many or as few contributors to the discussion -it all depends on who is interested. I choose to do a community GAR rather than an individual for a couple reasons. First, Nova and Danny are experienced reviewers and since each had expressed interest in this article it seemed silly not to tap into their expertise. I am also am "not confident in your ability to assess the article" which is therefore suggested to be a community rather than individual GAR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: I can understand that, guess for me it's a bit unorthodox after how many of these I've been through at this point, heh. Usually the GA process is the easier one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't have any other issues other than the issues down below, which seemed to have been solved. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 22:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
DannyMusicEditor Anything from you? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I have been too busy to comment lately, I will do so tomorrow afternoon when I have time. dannymusiceditor  oops  02:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
No time for a full comment yet, but do you have anything to add that wasn't already presented in your AfD discussion, @Lojbanist:? dannymusiceditor  oops  13:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@DannyMusicEditor: I'm going to be honest Danny given you were one of the initial reviewers unless you have any specific concerns I move that we close.  I've been waiting to promote this for WP:DYK and this has been hampering that process, and the seven day period is nearly up. The main issue for most people seems to have been the lead, and I believe we've addressed that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Kung Fu Man: I don't think we should close this GAR yet but I would definitely support your nominating it now for DYK given those time limits. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


#### Specific Concerns
I haven't come up with a better wording but I worry that the MOS:FIRST, specifically which appears as Nintendo's Mario franchise character Bowser transformed to resemble another character, Peach., does not make clear to a broad audience who Bowsette is - I wouldn't have understood it, despite being a video game player, without having read the rest of the article which is somewhat against the conventions of what is desired.
Journalists took notice of the trend and were surprised by its longevity - I'm not sure longevity is the right word considering Bowsette is like two weeks old.
I'll admit that sentence is a bit odd, it's hard to figure out how to word it without going too into detail. As for the second I would argue it's valid though: a lot of journalists expected it to only last a day or two such as the IGN panel and Alex Olney (who's statement was noted in the reception section more directly).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I've tried my hand at the lead. How does it read now? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


##### Issues
I have a lot of issues with this article. 
First, I don't believe that the article is stable. The most recent 50 edits took place within the past 4 days. In that time, there have been improvements, reverts, page protection, and an AFD nomination.
Beyond that, I have issues with the prose and the article structure. There's some pretty garbled grammar in places.
"Bowsette quickly rose in popularity internationally, with related hashtags trending in English and Japanese appearing on Twitter." -- This is all over the place. Should probably be along the lines of "...with related hashtags in English and Japanese trending on Twitter".
"Typically portrayed as a light-skinned blonde woman with horns, fangs, and a spiked collar with matching armbands, though there is some variation." -- This is a sentence fragment.
The article structure is probably my biggest problem, in that there really isn't enough structure. Far too much of this reads as just stating fact after unrelated fact. "This is what this person said. And this is what another person said." and so on. For example, the third paragraph of the "Reception" section starts off by talking about how the concept inspired gender-swapped fan art of other Nintendo characters, and ends up talking about copyright law, which is a jarring transition that makes the article hard to follow. Or there's the "Background" section, which goes well outside the scope of just discussing background and ends up mentioning a fan convention. As someone who wasn't previously familiar with the subject of the article, I had to read it multiple times to be able to take everything in.
Finally, I have concerns over copyright for the included images, especially the second one. I am not especially familiar with copyright policy, so I say this with little confidence, but I am not sure that the fair use claims really stand up. The usage rationale for the second image states that the article as a whole is dedicated to the discussion of the work, which is clearly not true. Lowercaserho (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Lowercaserho for bringing the stability piece back into play. I personally don't think the snow keep AfD should be held against it. Nor should the causes that led it to be semi-protected be held against it - that would essentially be a heckler's veto. However, I do think there are legitimate questions about its stability even beyond that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I would argue the article is stable enough: outside of a few needs for copyediting the article's structure is not needing to be completely upheaved or heavily added to (or being heavily added to), which is a significant factor for stability. Similar articles have disputed facts that get squeezed in from time to time too (such as MissingNo. or Poison (Final Fight), a FA and GA respectively, that both have had disputed facts squeezed into the articles repeatedly by editors over time or brought up on the discussion page).
Lastly regarding the images GA class articles usually allow for at most two fair use images: one to illustrate the subject of the article, and the other to illustrate a significant aspect of the article. In this case, ayyk92's panel which was the catalyst for the whole event, and an example of Japanese professional artists contributing their own takes on the design, and a common design addition by said artists. Now the first panel cannot be put on Commons in any way: While there are copyright free Bowsette images on Commons (none of which can fill the purpose of the panel, which is in this case being used similar to a screenshot or promotional artwork to illustrate a character), Mario, Peach and Luigi present in the panel would flatly fail it on copyright grounds. It may be possible to get the second image on commons, but it would require someone with far better Japanese than I to get the permission.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I will add too I think regarding this GA there's a problem of "too many cooks" trying to copyedit the article at once in response to this GAR. For example the sentence fragment brought up by @Lowercaserho: was not there in a previous version, at the very least in the last version @Barkeep49: spoke on above. I don't think that's a stability issue but one where this should be a more regular re-GAN and instead it's becoming a crowded mass discussion where even the original editors haven't even weighed in.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Kung Fu Man: I get that the circumstances which has led to this GAR were not of your doing. I know you're nothing but a good faith, well intentioned editor attempting to make the encyclopedia better. I stand by my decision to make this a community rather than individual GAR - I saw an issue that I did not feel equipped to handle solely and furthermore saw other editors who were willing to participate at some level. It seemed like the opportunity for a functional GAR, rather than the mostly dead community GARs that happen where I am one of two editors that ends up closing them after minimal discussion and effort. There might be a case of too many cooks in the kitchen but I think it's a stretch to blame this community GAR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: I understand that, I just feel we're reaching a point of rapid critical mass: the more editors that come into the mix with their own ideas of how the article should be, and then editors on top of them trying to help and maintain the article in response to those issues. This is why GAN is usually one or two editors and the main nominator fixing any issues, and even FAs are usually a bit more focused. Honestly at this point I'm getting overwhelmed to the point I'm willing to say revoke it so I can watch sources, see if I can improve the article and its prose and try to renominate it in a month. I think really my biggest mistake was pushing to get it to GA so soon after it hit, especially given it's an article a lot of folks pretty clearly feel doesn't belong.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Given Danny's comment above and the conversation here Kung Fu Man I want to confirm one more time that you're OK closing with a delist (for now). If so I will go ahead and close this GAR with that outcome. I'm genuinely not trying to pressure you here, instead give you a chance to walk back the comment right above this as (understandable) frustration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
By the way, Lowercaserho beat me to the stability concerns which is what I was going to bring up but did not see. Kung Fu Man, yes, I agree. The article is just way too hot. In fact, I don't even think it's your fault; if I had completed that review, I'd have asked my pass to be undone. The first mistake would have lied with an extremely early GA review. AS for the article, it looks great, but it's still being so heavily worked on, and the article was improperly reviewed, I just don't think it should have been passed in the first place. Please don't be discouraged, though. What I saw in your last edit summary was basically all I was going to say, though. dannymusiceditor  oops  03:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I'm throwing in the towel here. Honestly I really do think it should've just been redone but at this point I think there are, as you say too hot right now. I will say for the purpose of further discussions though I don't think afds like that one should be used as a guide for article stability: anyone can nominate it, and in this case the nominator has an issue with articles he feels don't belong here rather than the content of the article (and that has actually happened with two other articles I've written and gotten to GA, in fact, so kinda used to it by now).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted a gif added by a one User:D4n2016 to the article, which he uploaded on Commons (NSFW), claiming to be the author (here is the source, still NSFW). I'm aware that Bowsette has an ocean of porn and that Wikipedia has a number of pornographic or otherwise NSFW images. However, I removed it because of it's copyright status and because I don't think it really added anything to the article. I'm on the fence about that matter since, again, the character has a large amount of porn of her. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed, and unlike the other two doesn't really add anything. The reception as is already mentions some of the art was lewd.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with both of the above users. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
agree too, thought it was "important" to get this gif into the article asap (to show "Bowsette" is intended to be "lewd" by it's inventor, afaik?), glad you guys made a decision that quickly. Sorry, I didn't know how to reach the creator of that gif/didn't know who that was until you linked the source (thanks for it!) All the best to you all, D4n2016 (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
The source is in the bottom right corner of the gif. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

One. Hundred. And. Nine. Papers. Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 00:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

What?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Bowsette isn't a genderbent. It's just a peach look-a-like Bowser. Also, it's the Super Crown that turned Bowser into this. Bowsette takes off that Super Crown, he turns right back to Bowser. In the game however, if anyone but Toadette touches the Super Crown, they only get ten coins. Fandom Bella (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Fandom Bella (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sources call it gender bent. The in-game mechanics of the crown are irrelevant.  -- ferret (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
So the changing of a male character into a look alike of a female character is not a genderbend? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Ferret, I don't know about the mechanics being irrelevant to the article, but you're right that being genderbent isn't really up for debate. dannymusiceditor  oops  13:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I meant generally in so far as being an explanation about 'why' it's not genderbent. -- ferret (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Nice to see where wikipedians priorities are. 2A01:4C8:9:1C89:9110:2FCE:4CEE:F3F8 (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a volunteer project. We build articles based on what we want to at the time. I came out of retirement to write this because I wanted to. If you want to make articles you feel are lacking on wikipedia, nobody's stopping you from making an account, compiling sources and releasing your own.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
It's only your fault, anon, you could have done anytime but you didn't. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The only thing that prevented this article from becoming a good article was that it is not stable enough and that the content in the article was changing too frequently to be a GA. However, edits on the article have slowed down meaning it is likely stable enough to pass, but i'm not the one to decide, so i've posted this here hoping to get a consensus on wether or not to renominate the article. So should we? 344917661X (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd say wait just a bit longer, momentum's still going a bit even if it slowed down some.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
How much longer should we wait? 344917661X (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Honestly a few more weeks at least. We're still getting people arguing over stuff like "this was done in a porn comic first!" or "Bowser only gets 10 coins" (which I can't actually find a source for yet and doesn't really matter in the context of this) and so forth. I'd rather the hype die down enough where we don't have a repeat of what was going on with the GAR ultimately, with a lot of good faith editors stepping over each other to the point it was hard to keep track of some changes.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree, let's wait until the hype dies down. We should also add a warning when editing the article not to change who first came up with Bowsette and to not add anything related to the 10 coins thing. 344917661X (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Nah both are covered by the talk page, people will still bring it up though. It's like how MissingNo. people still try to bring up "Oh he's in Pokemon Yellow" when that's not even the same thing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

On the See also Section of this article, should we mention Cut Man V (created by Sesakaheart) because Cut Man V is also a fan-made alternate form of a character? Here's an image of him.Kaithehedgefox

No. There are thousands of fan made alternatives for thousands of different characters. Just because something exists doesn't make it notable or important.  Unless you can find several examples of reliable secondary sources covering this, it doesn't belong on wikipedia. Forums,  deviantart, Tumblr, etc, are not reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
But in my opinion the reason why I think only Cut Man V should be noted below is because that Cut Man V is a fan-made super mode version of Cut Man. Many Others aren't. Kaithehedgefox (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)kaithehedgefoxKaithehedgefox (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Bowsette meets WP:GNG due to more or less going viral in the extreme and thus receiving widespread media coverage. Cut Man V has not gone viral or received significant coverage, while bowsette was pretty much unavoidable for most of september/october as a a stand-alone phenomenon.  CommissarPat (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, there isn't alot of information about Cut Man V on the web, so Cut Man V doesn't need to be mentioned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.231.187.127 (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

https://kotaku.com/nintendo-officially-shoots-down-bowsette-1831489905 Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Worked it in, not as surprised as they seem to be in that article though. Definitely odd they mention Luigi specifically in that blurb however.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought the Luigi mention was bizarre too. I wasn’t sure if I was missing something, or if it was purposefully random/misdirection, as to not make it seem so direct of a response to Bowsette. (Which, if that was a case, was a failure, because I came across about 10 other sources that more or less said the same thing as Kotaku here, directly tying it to bowsette.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bowsette/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 19:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I mean, I love Bowsette, so how can I not review this? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
At one point it notes that Luigi and Peach are visibly shocked, but the sources attached don't seem to state as such. Is there a reliable source that can be used to describe the contents of the image?
Removed 'visibly shocked', should be alright without that bit of text.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Seems pretty rad. Good job with it. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I wonder whether the second copyrighted image is really necessary. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The second illustrates a design variance with several artists that drew the character and the contributions by more mainstream artists towards the meme. More thorough reasoning can likely be found on the GAN page, but consensus was that it was fine for the purposes of the article and fine under fair use.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm only just noticing this conversation after having already made an edit. I switched out the lead image of the article to one that better portrays the character (the Ayyk92 comic is important for the history of Bowsette, but given that a lot of the character is out of frame in that comic, I don't think it's an ideal lead image). With the Ayyk92 comic now moved to the Background section, and the new lead image also showing a spiked tail, the Kōsuke Kurose image seemed unnecessary. Given that this article is about a fan-drawn character with tons of possible depictions (including several already on Commons), it seems to me that the Kōsuke Kurose image fails WP:FREER. –IagoQnsi (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm already questioning just how many on Wikipedia Commons are actual viable for this purpose especially given the derivative nature of this character and use of iconography tied to Nintendo trademarks (Koopa shells, the crown itself), but by and far this article did not need four images to showcase what two are able to readily do: the origin comic, variation of design, and contributions by notable artists. Additionally a cosplay image adds nothing to the understanding of the character because cosplay was not a significant factor here, nor particularly unique to this character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm starting this discussion after I was reverted by User:Kung Fu Man. I think File:Bowsette another one by poderosoandrajoso.png should be used as the top image in the article and File:Bowsette Comic by ayyk92.jpg should be moved to the Background section. This article is titled "Bowsette" and is about the character as a whole, not just the original comic by ayyk92. While the original comic is very valuable to include as part of the character's history, it's not an ideal image for talking about the character herself because we can't see much of her. The comic is tightly framed so that we can't much of her body (e.g. crown, legs, koopa shell are all obscured). Additionally, Bowsette is also only a small part of the total frame which includes several other characters (this is especially problematic since the image has such a low resolution).
The image I picked shows Bowsette uncropped, in-full, as the lone subject, and at a high resolution. I chose it because I thought it was the best one out of commons:Category:Bowsette, but I would welcome another free image if a better one is available. (I didn't use the existing image File:Bowsette by Yuske Murata.png because I believe that image violates WP:NFC and should be deleted; discuss at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 7#File:Bowsette by Yuske Murata.png). –IagoQnsi (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm admittedly very confused why you seem insistent the original comic image should take less priority than the subsequent works based off it. Reasonings of the image being low resolution and cropped are due to discussions on here and during the GAN where it was reasoned to use only a relevant section to it. Additionally as I said here above and on the discussion link, I do question the validity of those images in commons as free use, given they seem to be taken from artists' pages and are just as derivative as the professional artist's work used here, minus the relevance to the article of said artists contributing their own fan art.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that the original comic is a bad choice for the top of the article because it's low-res/cropped; I'm arguing it's a bad choice because Bowsette is not the focus of the image. I'll repeat what I wrote above: This article is titled "Bowsette" and is about the character as a whole, not just the original comic by ayyk92. While the original comic is very valuable to include as part of the character's history, it's not an ideal image for talking about the character herself because we can't see much of her. The comic is tightly framed so that we can't much of her body (e.g. crown, legs, koopa shell are all obscured). Additionally, Bowsette is also only a small part of the total frame which includes several other characters.
As for the Commons images, you may be right that some/all of those images need to be removed from Commons as derivative works. However, even if these images are not entirely free, they are freer than the Kurose image. The Commons images are free depictions of a non-free character, while the Kurose image is a non-free depiction of a non-free character. Per WP:FREER, we should choose images with the least copyright restrictions. If those images are to be deleted from Commons, we would need to upload one of them to Wikipedia with a non-free rationale. –IagoQnsi (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually adding to this, the original source of the second image is from Kurose's twitter (https://twitter.com/kurosep/status/1043915775810011136?s=21) and doesn't even have any indication of copyright or even an artist's signature on the images. Could it be possible to just move it to commons then under the same guidelines that apparently allowed the deviantart fan art?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The poderosoandrajoso image has an explicitly-stated CC BY-SA license listed on its DeviantArt page. Commons can only host content which has been explicitly placed under a free license; anything else is automatically copyrighted by law. –IagoQnsi (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
We could reach out to Kurose and see if he'd be up for it, language barrier would be an issue. If not that then perhaps one of the other professional artists if the Free Use options are this much an problem, but I still think for the purposes of an article actually using a relevant image vs random fan art (which are still very questionable on commons to begin with due to being derivative and I really don't think would hold up if scrutinized).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)