Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Template:Fiction notice

CSE milestone

In an interesting milestone, the anime/manga reliable sources search engine has today passed 2000 blacklisted domains and 300 whitelisted domains. (Specifically, 2128/302.) The search which had the dubious distinction of adding so much to the blacklist was Sexfriend.

As ever, editors are encouraged to use the CSE to find sources for articles; I encourage everyone also to report junk-filled searches or suggest additional domains/URLs for the black/whitelists. --Gwern (contribs) 21:39 24 January 2011 (GMT)

Yumekui Merry translation check

Will someone be willing to do a translation check at Yumekui Merry for the episode titles

Lolicon delisted as GA

Jezhotwells, in his infinite wisdom and lack of knowledge on the topic, has delisted Lolicon as a GA. Just FYI... ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for clarification as to how the article still fails the GA criteria. I'd be happier if the MTCG entry was being used as a post-lolicon-boom source, but I think the article has improved a lot. Perhaps a peer review would be a good next step? --Malkinann (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If sources are an issue, I spent some time today cleaning up CSE hits for lolicon. As of the instant I write this, all 15 pages of results are free of porn links. --Gwern (contribs) 02:05 17 February 2011 (GMT)

Endless arguments... why don't people just improve the article, add new material, delete old stuff, and then bring it up again after a few months of concerted effort? Anything else starts to waste time, don't you think? Timothy Perper (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's also about the way the editor handled the review since he's done this in the past, ie delisted without giving any help after an initial review and without departing commentary as to why something was delisted.陣内_Jinnai 03:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan! up for deletion

Just a heads up, think of Wikipe-tan and please reply to this AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

At this point its likely to be deleted. Political correctness seems to be the ultimate trumpcard over a bit of humor anymore. I'd suggest userfying.陣内_Jinnai 18:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep everything has to be politically correct now, this goes against WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Personally with everything going on in the world from Miley Cirus bein ga role model for kids and doing drugs to Child porn why people target things liek thsi is beyond me as it does not promoste anything and peopel (not all) find it funny. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot more going on in this discussion of Wikipetan than mere "political correctness." The question is whether or not you want Wikipedia to include "humor" for its own sake, for its own jokey purposes, when that "humor" offends people. It doesn't matter one tiny bit if you think it's hilarious -- some people are offended. Is that the public image you want for Wikipedia? Is that the tone and demeanor you want Wikipedia to put before the public? Do you want Wikipedia to appear to say that no one here cares if YOU, reader or visitor, are offended; WE don't care about YOU, reader or visitor, not one tiny little bit we don't? As my old grandma used to say, "Keep your jokes in the street. Don't bring 'em home." Timothy Perper (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms." Wikipedia already doesn't care about offending the reader. Why start now?--十八 02:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That's only work if you manage to define Wikipedia. By Wikipedia do you go by just the editors who share the same opinions than you ? Sure there is a lot of editors would happy to learn that they are not part of Wikipedia. One side of the discussion cannot have the monopoly over the word "Wikipedia". I would not argument using the "we" of Wikipedia in such discussions like this one because there is no consensus before hand within its community on the subject. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That is meant for articles that are read by the casual reader looking for an article on wikipedia. Still, it's stupid to even keep it.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I did a major overhaul of the page and took out alot of the offensive stuff people were complaining about. Hey what can you do thats life. I would rather have an article that has something funny to do with wikipe-tan than no article at all though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems inoffensive. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

People who are intrested in our project mascot might want to pay attention to this AfD, a number of editors are asking why wikipe-tan is even on wikipedia and what images of her (If any) should be used where outside our project. I am not going to be the one who makes that topic here just a heads up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if this is related somehow, but IvoryMeerkat removed her from the Moe anthropomorphism article ([1]).--十八 22:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that too and left "The image is essentially original work generated for Wikipedia. It was removed as a WP:SELFREF but there are also no reliable sources which identify Wikipe-tan as a moe anthropomorphism of Wikipedia" can images be made to help out wikipedia thoug hto give examples? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR does not apply to images that are made to meet NFCC. It is explicitly stated as such per WP:OI. Feel free to revert any an all attempts to remove them because of OR violations except in very extreme circumstances, ie someone comes out with a new form of artwork that isn't verified.陣内_Jinnai 00:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

More to comment I also see Tarc attacking people in the AfD. Is there really going to be a battle over a mascot here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

In spite calls for there not to be, that's what it appears to be devolving into.陣内_Jinnai 00:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Voice actor Mónica Villaseñor

The article on voice actress Mónica Villaseñor is a long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. I have tried, and failed, to find any reliable sources to support the article. There is a list of roles at ANN] but I'm assuming from your guidelines that this does not count as a WP:RS. She does not appear to have an entry at Behind the Voice Actors and es.wikipedia has deleted articles on this actor three times for lack of notability. I know articles on voice actors can be difficult to source so I thought I would post here in the hope that someone with better knowledge of the area might like to take an interest. If it remains unsourced for much longer, it may be nominated for deletion.--Plad2 (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Article now at AfD--CharlieDelta (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Someone here would likely have to have a translation copy of those versions. Maybe the Cowboy Bebop one could be used if someone has the international version. That's the only one I think that might be possible.陣内_Jinnai 22:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Spring 2011 anime premiers

I've started compiling a list of the Spring 2011 anime premiers and my eyes boggle at the shear number. Of the 33 premiers next April that I've so far learned about, 13 currently don't have articles and at least 2 are games that probably need a separate anime article. It seems that we have a lot of work to do in the next month. —Farix (t | c) 02:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

A few naming issues:

• Should [C] The Money of Soul and Possibility Control be located at C: The Money of Soul and Possibility Control or (C) The Money of Soul and Possibility Control? Do to technical limitations, the square brackets cannot be included in the title. My preference is the first one.
• Ano Hi Mita Hana no Namae o Bokutachi wa Mada Shiranai. (あの日見た花の名前を僕達はまだ知らない。) included the period? Using Bakuman as an example, I would believe no.
• Should Appleseed XIII have its own article like the rest of the Appleseed series?
• Should Steins;Gate get a separate article from the video game? The game article is already well developed and it wouldn't be a good idea to included a bunch of stuff about the anime adaptation, which will require significant changes.
• Should タイガー＆バニー be located at Tiger and Bunny or Tiger & Bunny. I'm not sure how WP:MOS affects ampersands in official titles.

—Farix (t | c) 00:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Official ampersands should be used, yes. And agree about no period. No opinion on the others. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I still find it funny that we include exclamation and question marks in titles, but refuse to put periods when they're in the original title.--十八 09:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I find it odd too. Are periods not equal to exclamation marks? I think there should be a deeper discussion than the one in bakuman for this. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I dont think it should be a matter of wikipedia standards against the period in general, it's just more english sources won't put the period in unlike exclamation points and question marks that will more effectively change the structure of the sentence. Which is why there was so much dispute with Oh My Goddess! title. so yes, periods aren't as equal to exclamation points or question marks in general because the main usage is being used at the end of the title. Periods have made itself in titles many times but just to place a decimal. I think they can be added if more sources add them in and not at the end of the title.

Anyways, (C) would be problematic as we use "()" to distinguish other articles. And "C:" would have to be verified. I dont think theres too much problem naming the article as it's intended name. I support a split for Steins;Gate and Appleseed XIII. Tiger & Bunny would be the most likely choice, but not so sure if you verified the name in english.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice work on this list Farix. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but it shows that we are going to be very busy come March/April with almost 40 premiers and growing. —Farix (t | c) 05:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll be editting again since the thorns in my side (IMHO) have decreased by two of late. I'm looking forward to more God Only Knows, Aria the Scarlet Ammo and Lotte.... I'll try to look at some of the older articles too. Hopefully I'll stay away from Israel-Palestine for a while too. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

IP Editor check

Would someone like to double check the contributions of 114.79.54.210 (talk). After reverting the editor twice at Air Gear for adding dubious information and given that the IP is from Indonesia, I have a nagging feeling that the other edits may also be dubious. —Farix (t | c) 11:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't reverted any edits yet but I would like to add 67.205.251.109 (talk). – Allen4names 04:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Allcinema RS check

Allcinema online - it appears to be a database info and could help especially with for Japanese episode date listings as a centralized locationsince ANN is no longer an option. Their about us page doesn't give too much info, but the 2nd related company appears to be a marketing research company similar to Media Create. I found 1 press release by them [prtimes.jp/data/corp/0/06b01ef4a1a4832876112566d917397d.pdf] which doesn't tell too much more. It doesn't appear to be user contribued database like IMDB from what I can tell, but my Japanese isn't good enough to tell for certain where their info comes from.陣内_Jinnai 19:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan

I hesitated posting this here because theirs been attempts to stip the discussion, but it seems to be ongoing. Looks like an admin finally closed it. User:IvoryMeerkat claims at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan conflict that by the nature of moe (slang) all images of Wikipe-tan are lolicon and thus should be removed. In addition to that he been removing images of her from our pages and templates.

This is very likely to result in an RfC on her existance here at Wikipedia as claims have been leveled that her existance creates a hostile enviroment to women.陣内_Jinnai 04:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes there have been numopurs editors that want wikipe-tan removed and those who support the mascot we have here, I encourage all of you who care to join in any discussion that is made reguarding our mascot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was closed. I would suggest, if the RfC or VP discussion is created to post here as this is not only an attack on her, but they've also some have leveled an attack on this WikiProject by extension.陣内_Jinnai 04:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, according to Tarc's expert opinion, Wikipe-tan is cartoon porn. I miss the wild old days where we could use fair use images and didn't have to deal with shit like this.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Tarc tactic, which has also been adopted by IvoryMeerkat, is to associate everyone who defends Wikipe-tan with pedophilia by calling Wikipe-tan lolicon or child pornography. It's really nothing more than an indirect personal attack and, given Wikipedia's policy of indefinitely banning all identified pedophiles, he should be called out on it every time he does it. —Farix (t | c) 05:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

to me, the character resembles a simpler version of hatsune miku. a different hairstyle (and personally better drawn) along with a male level of equal value to Wikipe-tan (like a brother) could be added. That way, it can promote in someway kin-ship and unity. i know this might be asking alot though. So if it would take too much time, i understand. Also remove the lolicon style. I don't really see it as porn, but i could see some people thinking so.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not know if much of a case could be made against wikipe-tan yes images not related to the encyclopedia and are just on userpages could be removed from the gallery at WP:Wikipe-tan but other than that is there really concrete proof that this turns women away? Wikipe-tan violates no rules and actully helps much more than hurts wikipedia from the article examples used to being a mascot for our project. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the "it drives women away" is overdramatic responses by Wikipe-tan haters. I don't see any reason to remove images from the gallery, they may have future use. I don't believe the much hated bikini image was originally created for the fanservice page, but found a home there eventually. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I also don't think it drives women away. but i could see it to rage so much. Which is propose a male character alongside.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I notified Kasuga as he should be aware of this as her creator.陣内_Jinnai 05:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I do not think that is going to do any good over at his talk page on Japan's wiki it seems that Kasuga is no longer an admin there or even active. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Genderswap her! Wikipe-oniichan! (Zomg) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

NO, it would be too time consuming. we just add a male version. but doing so, i would also propose possibly changing her default appearance too. and for the sake of creativity, possibly make Wikipe-tan older and wiki-kun younger since he will obviously be newer than her.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

We should also look through wiki-tan's archives on her page it seems that the idea of making her older and giving her a male counterpart are not new. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think we should "age" her at least physically. The moe has become rather iconic with her if you look not only here, but beyond wikipedia; changing it now may very much have a worse backlash than doing nothing and may cause even more unwanted attention.

I would also prefer not to do a mere gender flip of Wikipe-tan, but actually make a new character who is visually about the same age. Making one older than the other is likely to cause more headaches in the future as people complain about stereotyping one way or another. As for style, I'm not sure what we should do.陣内_Jinnai 05:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I am also against making her older as people complain either way, Does someone on our project want to make a same age male counterpart for wikipe-tan, I suggest brother and sister as we do not want more complaints about a relationship. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yea, there was someone complaining about the adult bikini version.

As for a male counterpart, I might try something. Maybe Kasuga will.陣内_Jinnai 05:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

unless it's provocative, i don't think it would matter, and i do believe we shouldn't make swimsuit versions of the characters. and i doubt it will be that big of a change as there are other artwork that shows her older, and some with a more elaborate style. But i guess they both have to be at an equal age, in order to avoid those problems.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the bikini image was created to fill a gap where we could no longer use a non-free image in the fanservice article. It was intended to serve a particular purpose but once pandora's box is opened, a CC liscensed work can be hard to stop metamorphing. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

the bathing suit for wikipe-tan is quite censored, and i don't personally see a problem with it, though it still can be done a lil less around the top. And if anyone who doesn't know. I'm female. Anyways...it's good to use wikipe-tan in areas where free-content is difficult to use, but we still need to control certain things. i just think an older version will have more restrictions.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see we're getting somewhere here. Disclaimer: I closed the discussion at WP:ANI, and to be clear, I am NOT an admin (yet?). I closed it per WP:IAR because the discussion was degenerating into pure WP:DRAMA and was way out of scope for ANI. A couple ideas: A brother for Wikipe-tan is an excellent idea. I'd be in favor of a little brother since the same age could lead to interpretation issues. I'd also suggest updating Wikipe-tan's attire to a more academic type (we are an encyclopedia after all). The bikini image should probably be deleted, it's out of scope. The article it's used on should get a new image without the wikipe-tan connotation. Just my ideas. Anyone who can want to start drawing? I'm not much good except for stick figures... N419BH 05:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that its out of scope. The bikini image was, to my recollection, created for the fanservice article. It adequately displays what is considered fanservice. Although, I would not have included the underboob... but I didn't create the image. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The main issue with that image is that it's of wikipe-tan. If we made it of a generic female that would solve that. N419BH 06:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that as a problem. Its all part of the moe anthropomorphism thing. Wikipedia isn't precisely a safe place and having that reflected by our "mascot" seems rather ironically fitting. (You should see some of the old Imac"-tan" images....) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

All one would need to do is have a generic anime-looking character in a swimsuit to talk about fan service. Just not "older Wikipe-tan" to avoid the issue that is being contested. --MASEM (t) 05:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that the issue here is being blown out of proportion by a rally call of political correctness. The average character from anime or manga is a teenaged girl, hence the whole basis of moe/-tans. I can appreciate that if said character is aimed to be of a certain innocence and age, we shouldn't, on WP, promote artwork of her in more tasteful-yet-alluring outfits, teenaged or adult. I can appreciate a teenaged male counterpart, possibly representing meta.wikipedia.org or the like (since, presumably, that would be a school uniform, suit and tie, ergo more formal looking), to be used as similar artwork as the Wikipe-tan character. --MASEM (t) 05:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not think the bikini images of wikipe-tan should be deleted as long as they are confined to userpages or talk pages if that is the case I do not see a problem with it (It is already confined there anyways for one or two of the images). -Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I actully do not think wikipe-tan should be changed in any way, she is become notable (See her page) on how she looks and was even featured in a newspaper and cosplayed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

like i said as long as we keep things restricted, giving an older appearance wouldn't be that big of an issue. And i do believe a more academic appearance could be taken care of. the bikini is used more for the fan service. But it could've taken a different approach. And wikipe-tan at the moment doesn't look anything like a teenage girl, more like just a girl. Still, in order to solve this completely, wikipe-tan also needs some remodeling. Despite her notability, i dont think that would affect much, we could put a history and show earlier appearance and explain why it has changed.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Very true. I'm not suggesting we delete the current wikipe-tan. I'm suggesting we update her. A brother is a great idea though. The main issues expressed with wikipe-tan were her outfit and the images of her in a swimsuit, particularly the older one in the bikini. I don't have a problem with the swimsuit one. The bikini would be fine if it wasn't wikipe-tan, but I can see how people would have issue with that image being of her and not a generic person. As for the outfit it is a valid point. We do need to remember that we're the number 1 or 2 google result for a huge number of topics. Shouldn't our unofficial mascot reflect an academic endeavor? N419BH 05:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that wikipe-tan is a product of Moe anthropomorphism will she retain those features? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

the current older version isn't so bad. but a different wardrobe needs to be done in order to avoid this problem again. she's dressed up as a french maid.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps she should be made a bit older as the thing she represents (wikipedia) is older now too. As long as it's done tactfully that is. N419BH 06:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

i really don't want to push older unless she were to have a more formal look.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think an agre change is going to far. A wardrobe change, might be better, but I'd prefer to not jump the gun. There seems to be some who want her to stay like she is, some who want her to be older, some who want a wardrobe change and some both.I, myself would prefer her to stay like she is, though her wardobe could be diversified somewhat.

On the other hand there seems to be near universal consensus that a male counterpart, likely a brother, would be benifical. I suggest we start where there is consensus.陣内_Jinnai 06:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Just here to point out. While I have no objection for update her, Western-drawing anime character is usually missing some kind of...essence (not bias or anything, just observation). I can't explan it well, but there seem to be subtle cultural-level differrent between Western's "cuteness" and Japanese's "moe" (hard to descript, but I think people here understand what I'm talking). Not that it's impossible to make Wikipe-tan older while retain her moe appeal, but it's hard work. Then again, even Nanoha got some critism when she growth up. L-Zwei (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is talking about changing and replacing the current representation of Wikipe-tan. I think we're talking about providing alternate forms so it doesn't appear (even though I'm sure its no way intentional) we're promoting loli around the younger Wikipe-tan figure. Create a equivalent male character, that removes the sexism, and create older versions to remove the age issue so that no single version is favored. Heck, add other outfits to these other forms to round it out. But nothing about any of the existing young girl Wikipe-tan images need to be removed. --MASEM (t) 06:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Even the school swimsuit image is quite tame. I don't see any basis for a suggestion that we're promoting loli except from two users with rather unique viewpoints. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

well i would like her to be older if they update her outfit for formal and academic to fit more of wikipedia's style. But moe in general is a vague term used a lot in japan, and has also been used in different situation where wikipe-tan doesn't (but can) fit into. "stay as she is" is a problem at this moment and has to be fixed. no questions about that. She is a little girl wearing a french maid outfit, that in japan have certain cafe's wear women wear these as a uniform that males often enjoy for the very reason. I can also also agree we need a brother, but adding a brother without updating the current may cause problems when we do eventually agree to update her (and not match the brother). it is not a unique viewpoint, it's practically everywhere with wikipe-tan.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's another cultural differrent. We known that Doraemon is family-friendly show, yet whoever readed or watched most of it would known that the nudity isn't uncommon in this title. Yet you must be crazy to think that Fujiko Fujio promote lolicon. L-Zwei (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Masem, but I don't think that will get us anywhere by changing Wikipe-tan's design. First, those complaining about Wikipe-tan being or promoting lolicon or "child porn" are either using that as a shield to attack other editors or simply clueless as to what lolicon or child porn actually is. To them, any girl, regardless of how much clothing she has on, is going to be lolicon or child porn. The simple matter is they don't like Wikipe-tan and will use any argument to remove her. This is clearly evident during the ANI discussion and the MfD.

The only real issue here is use of Wikipe-tan in article space (beyond the portal and stub templates) as it relates to WP:SELF (i.e. referring to Wikipedia in a non-neutral fashion). It would be better if we conduct a survey of where Wikipe-tan images are used in articles and determine if (a) the image is really necessary and (b) is there another free use image available as a replacement. So far, I only see the image at moe anthropomorphism should be kept to maintain WP:NPOV for much the same reasons we use a snapshot of Wikipedia's main page for browser articles. In part because there are very few moe anthropomorphic caricatures (MAC) that are free use and using a different moe anthropomorphic caricature would be promoting the thing the MAC is suppose to represent. Though in the other cases, I don't see how the images are referring to Wikipedia in a non-neutral fashion. —Farix (t | c) 12:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the NPOV argument for having the image on moe anthropomorphism is necessarily correct; it could equally be argued that we should select a (free) image based on the degree to which the associated mascot is widely used/recognized/etc., rather than defaulting to a Wikipedia mascot. Are the Mac mascots significantly better-known than ours, for example?

(There is not, I think, a shortage of free images per se—note that Uncyclopedia has a slew of them, for example—but many of them are not ideal for a similar reason: they are simply not recognized outside of a very small group.)

As far as the images in project-space are concerned, I think there are three distinct questions we might consider:

1. What images should exist?

   Given that most of the images are hosted on Commons, I think this issue is essentially out of our hands. If anyone dislikes a particular image so much that they want it deleted, they're welcome to head over there and nominate it; given Commons' fairly liberal attitude, I doubt they'll get very far.

2. What images should be showcased on the WP:TAN page?

   I do think that we should be slightly more selective in displaying images on what is essentially a public-facing showcase, particularly in the case of derivative images that have little to do with Wikipe-tan's role as a mascot. Merely because someone spends a few minutes doing basic image editing (cf. File:Wikipe-tan (burqa).png) is not sufficient reason to guarantee them placement on a high-profile page, in my opinion.

3. What images should be used for project templates/pages/etc.?

   I generally agree with the suggestions above to add some more variety (different outfits, adding a male counterpart, etc.) to the current selection of images. While I doubt that anyone who finds the basic image truly offensive would be comfortable with Wikipedia anyways, given the plethora of offensive material in other articles, I do think it would be worthwhile to try and appeal to a broader audience if we can do so without compromising the spirit of the mascot.

It's worth pointing out that we do have images of Wikipe-tan both in "academic" contexts (e.g. File:Wikipe-tan the Library of Babel.png, File:Wikipe-tan sailor fuku.png, File:Kasuga s Wikipedia Submission by cult50contests.jpg) as well as as an adult (e.g. File:Adult Wikipe-tan.png, File:Wikipe-tan in navy uniform.png); these might be more suitable in some contexts than the default image. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

@Farix, to be clear, I see no reason why we need to change the base Wikipe-tan design - my idea is to only augment what images already exist at commons with alternate clothing, the male counterpart, etc. to simply dispel the far-fetched idea that WP is obsessed with loli around this girl figure. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually he does have a point about being NPOV. The issue came up with taking screenshots to have Wikipedia. First and foremost, we are not here to promote anyone candidate over another, even if they are the more prominence. Since wikipe-tan is clearly more neutral than anything else (she isn't promoting anything by Wikipedia itself) there cannot be anyone more neutral than her in anime/manga and similarly related articles.

I do think a male version would be helpful, not only to show we aren't sexist, but to use in certain article spaces where having Wikipe-tan would be inappropriate (other than shotacon where given Wikipe-tan's history any "mascot" would be inappropriate) or where having a female only character could be constued as biased.陣内_Jinnai 14:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why'd you all choose a moe girl for you mascot?

It was an unfortuante choice, folks. There are many other types of anime that would not be so fraught. You guys could come up with a great anime mascot, I'm sure of it. That you chose to embrace the otaki moe culture necessarily brings with it the controversy that surrounds said culture (and there certainly is a lot of controversy surrounding it). IvoryMeerkat (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a cute kid in a dress...nothing more, nothing less. We didn't choose her to be the unofficial mascot. Someone drew her, she gained popularity, and now she's used throughout the project. N419BH 16:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do you have an alternative to suggest? We are necessarily limited by what people ate willing to (a) draw and (b) release under a free license. Kasuga was generous enough to provide a suitably high-quality drawing, and we're not going to look a gift horse in the mouth here.

(Not that moe is exactly the most controversial aspect of anime. We could get something more controversial just as easily as something less so.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Meerkat is applying "guilt by association". The standard anime character used in wikipedia is in no way sexualized... except, as we used to say, "to those with dirty minds." Which reminds me... wasn't the Meerkat character in The Lion King accused of representing gay stereotyping? Maybe the OP ought to clean up his own "guilt by association" before going after others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should all stop with the ad hominem arguments. I have no idea why Wikipetan was chosen as an "unofficial mascot," nor do I know what an "unofficial mascot" really is, or what kind of vote or whatever was taken to make this image the project's "unofficial mascot." We all appreciate Kasuga's efforts, but ideas and preferences change over the years. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

They do change, but I don't think they've really changed that much. As for how she was chosen, when Wikipedia first formed, Jimbo Wales thought that since every major open source project had a mascot, Wikipedia should have one too. There were a lot of candidates and Wikipe-tan was the last one, but inspite that managed to get on the top 3 spot. However, no mascot was ever chosen; instead most of those proposals ended up being forgotten in the dustbins of Wikipedia history, while Wikipe-tan was embraced by several projects, notably this one - but not exclusively. Since then she's been used by seveeral RSes as a representation of Wikipedia. In fact, outside of Jimbo and the official logo you see on the top-left of your screen, she's probably the most widely recognized image associated with Wikipedia.陣内_Jinnai 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit Conflict. There's a "real" mascot for Wikipedia, a centipede thingie of some kind, as I remember, isn't there? So, if Wales' argument still holds any weight nowadays, why use something like Wikipetan when her image invokes such anger and rhetoric?What is the purpose of that?? Somewhere in this discussion, User:Cunard switched his vote back to delete. I'm beginning increasingly to agree with Cunard, and my thinking is going back to delete it. Why? Because I do not hear the Wikipetan partisans answering any of the issues raised by her critics. I hear anger, scorn, dislike, incivility, and contempt, but not serious answers to issues of offending people. Remember something, folks: even the hint of sexualization of children can get people very upset. And Wikilawyering won't stop them from expressing their concerns. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thus, by extension we should ban anime and manga from having content at WP because as most of it involves young girls (in non-sexual situations), someone could take offense from it. Oh wait, no, WP:CODI.

I would say that a completely valid action is to seek input from the Foundation - do they think the image a problem as a representation of WP? We can explain some see it as a problem with loli/moe culture and ask if that is an issue. At best, they may actually say "Yes, we agree its a problem and would like you to remove it", answer solved , or they may think it's completely acceptable, and that would also solve that answer. At worse, they offer no opinion, and we're back here. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And while you're at it, ask if they'd prefer to have a centipede as a mascot. (Ugh.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Masem, I think you may be missing my point. No one is even talking about manga or anime that has children and girls in NON-sexual situations. Instead, the issue is that even the hint of sexualization of children raises some intense issues for a good many people, and those issues have not been addressed. The issue cannot be solved wikilawyering the policies or definitions. The issue of sexualization of children is not going to go away, and the people who oppose Wikipetan are not going to stop expressing their anger and concerns, no matter how people wikilawyer the matter.Timothy Perper (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Just be sure nobody sexualizes that centipede. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Regardless of what we choose as a "mascot", there will be somewhere out there that will consider the mascot in a sexual way and these arguments will start again. That's why 1) if its only a small minority of people that think there's a problem with Wikipe-tan, we can't do much about that and 2) the Foundation likely should have an opportunity to say something towards this which may resolve the issue in one fell-swoop. This argument reminds me of the constant complains at the Five Pillars that the concept violates Islam religion. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Dude, seriously? There is nothing inherently sexualized about moe culture. Yes, there are those fans who split off and created lolicon and that is obviously sexualized. Just like the Anime News Network says, moe is used "to describe something precious, usually (but not always) the ideal of youthful and innocent femininity." The not always is due to the small amount of creepy fans that turn it into something that almost everyone would agree is creepy and wrong. But that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong or sexualized about the base moe culture.

Luckily, I have the perfect example. I'm a furry. Yes, there is a very, very small amount of the fandom that is into zoophilia and plushophilia, but that doesn't mean that the entire fandom is into it or that that should be used to place values onto the rest of the fandom that we don't have. In the same way, don't place the creepy little girl sexualization of lolicon onto the entire moe fandom, when it has nothing to do with what the moe culture is about. Silverseren^C 18:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Some of them are depicted as heroin addicts, as in the song, "The Furry with the Syringe on Top". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't actually heard that one before. :P Silverseren^C 19:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Timothy, a lot of those people you cite have a problem with anime and manga in general; not all, but many. That's evidenced by just looking at remarks. I mean when Tokyo Mew Mew went up for posting as Today's Feature Article there was a no vote because it was an anime, and one specifically about young girls even though the series is a children's anime in the line of any other animation, including western animation, aimed at kids that helps instill morale values, giving positive attitudes, etc. while being entertaining.陣内_Jinnai 19:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Lets just leave wikipe-tan alone

Honestly I do not think that the current image of wikipe-tan violates anything or is in any way promoting lolicon or child porn ect... This looks like an opinion war to me and while I can agree to some of the bathing suit images being just confined to userpages I do not see why there needs to be a major overhaul of our mascot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's been obvious for some quite time now. it has mention over and over, if you cannot see that or choose not to see it. then i dont know what to say. Although it's seemingly "unofficial", the mascot is still being in articles and in the wikiproject.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there's something to be said for the fact that you are seeing a sexual image when it's just an image of a girl in an entirely non-revealing outfit. Silverseren^C 22:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's a personal attack. and no, it's not like that and i have not mentioned anything "sexual" up to this point. it's more sexist.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

How can it be seen as sexist though? It is ment to be a run of the mill anime girl that is also used in other areas of wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

it's already been explained. i'm not going to answer this time after time. just look at the discussion. If you are male, you probably won't understand either.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Another thing I want to say is that you can not please everyone No matter what you do someone somewhere is going to complain (Just look at the superbowl commercials), that being said this is indeed an opinion war as wikipe-tan violates no policies here on wikipedia. Those who think she is sexy others say no, those who think her outfit is ugh others say no way, those who think this is lolicon others say What? This can go on and on... lets just end it now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

this isn't the superbowl, and i could go on to say how iwkipedia is complete opposite to wikipedia to the point where that analogy was horrid. but i tihnk you know why too, and if you aks me to elaborate, i'll suggest you elaborate yourself. Once again, this is more sexist, than it being "sexy".Bread Ninja (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As said, most of those people have a problem with anime in general. Maybe they have in their opinion because of skewed media portrayal or other factors. I know because my mother talks to people at her work all the time who think anime = pokemon or big-breasted girls in bikinis (or less) still. As I said, there could be reason for making a male counterpart and possibly giving her a few more outfits for selected article use, but by and large there really isn't an issue except that anime and manga, like video games, is easy to bash. The updates shouldn't replace what we have, they should compliment it. If we change it, they'll complain because of something else.陣内_Jinnai 22:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That will always happen. and updating and changing isn't that different. all i'm saying is give her a more academic look to match more of wikipedia. and of course there is already an older version, so i doubt anyone will complain that much.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

How about redesigning her to look less like a cute anime kid, and more like Margaret Hamilton. Then put a black dress and black cone-shaped hat on her, and call her "The Wiki-Wiccan of the West". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"there is already an older version, so i doubt anyone will complain that much" Lets see we have the bikini picture with her boobs so called hanging out, trust me people find a way and there has already been complains about the older version too. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

let's not be sarcastic. this is getting heated and i'm trying to not get this incredibly personal. is it so bad to make her look more scholarly?

@knowledgekid8: that image is currently being used for fan-service. and please let's not think this half-way just to defend your point.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And this image File:Neko Wikipe-tan.png is being used as an example for the catgirl article would a grown up wikipe-tan in a catgirl outfit look any better? Or how about this one File:WikiProject Scouting Guiding 2010 Centenary Wikipe-tan.svg for the girl scouts? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's not start deleting things. None of the images of her we're using here violate any laws let alone any policies. If you think a page can use an image that doesn't have one, that's fine. Furthermore, let's not start changing images for other projects. If they have an issue, they will change it or remove it. However, making her older won't help because people will still complain because its anime.陣内_Jinnai 22:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

At one point wikipe-tan had the picture of the day status it just goes to show you it is all in ones opinion here (You can see that here File:Anime Girl.svg). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK that particular image has nothing to do with Kasuga or Wikipe-tan; it's the work of Niabot, who happens to be a fairly prolific creator of anime-themed artwork. Most of his Commons drawings are rather more risque than what we're dealing with on en.wiki, but there are occasional non-risque examples (e.g. File:Mahuri.jpg). Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And while people continue to decry anime in general, this discussion will never generate any sort of objective consensus, so I move we close this discussion as premature, and open it back up once the general public reaches a maturity level capable of discussing this in a rational manner. As it stands, I see nothing more than opinion wars and multiple violations of WP:NPA, which suggests that we as a culture are not mature enough for this kind of discussion. Sasuke9031 (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I rather expect achieving that sort of maturity may take longer than our lifetimes. ;-)

On a more serious note, I think the most productive path forward would be to separate the question of whether the original Wikipe-tan drawing(s) are sexualized/inappropriate/etc.—which, as you point out, is mostly a matter of opinion that we're not likely to settle here—and the question of what, if anything, we can do to improve (a) Wikipe-tan et al.'s suitability as a mascot and (b) the availability of freely-licensed sample images for anime/manga/etc. articles. The latter questions remain quite reasonable ones, in my opinion; we certainly have room to improve. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I was asked to look up moe in The Otaku Encyclopedia and basically its gives, like many things with language, mixed results. After some historic background, it does note that it contains some elements of lolicon and bishoujo elements, but emphasizes that it is only one of multiple elements and also emphasizes its a innoncent non-sexual connotation. It does note the sexual connotation that is there, but also frames it into a larger phsychologicl concepts.

It also notes other connotations of moe being used with yaoi too so its hard to say anything definitive being that moe=sexual desire of girls, let alone underage girls; its certainly one aspect, but its by far not the main idea when someone says something is moe. There is a specific word for that: erokawaii.陣内_Jinnai 00:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In other words moe can be seen like 10,000 diffrent ways (btw I love The Otaku Encyclopedia). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

@Bread Ninja: I wished Knowledgekid was being sarcastic, however, an editor did complain about adult Wikipe-tan's boobs "hanging out" in the swimsuit image during the ANI discussion. —Farix (t | c) 00:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. My only thought when I saw the image of Wikipe-tan in that notorious bikini was "Why doesn't she adjust her top? Isn't that uncomfortable?" Beyond that, as someone who never really liked Wikipe-tan as a mascot -- I find Anime & Manga for the most part uninteresting -- why all the fuss about a cartoon character? Sure, some people will find sexual overtones in Wikipe-tan, but some people will find sexual overtones in any image. Probably even a photo of linoleum. People are sexual creatures. -- llywrch (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

anyways...i don't think making her older will make much negative outcome. And please don't think everything half-way or biasly. Making her older will only cause problems if you don't want to find out a way to fix it, which there are many ways. especially for the fanservice bikini issue. is it so hard to make a bikini top to cover that area? as for moe, the definitions given already seem to lean toward sexual. not that i care moe has been seen many ways, she can look older and still keep the moe personification. But i just think her outfit is a lil sexist for wikipedia. It's not like moe is the biggest thing in anime and manga.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I honestly like Wikipe-tan as a cute playful, cheerful kid. An older version loses much of the innocents she has. The whole lolicon and child pron angle is just spin by those who dislikes Wikipe-tan because she is an anime/manga inspired character. Well guest what, this is an anime and manga WikiProject. Its mascot should be an anime/manga inspired character. The fact that other editors outside the WikiProject have also adopted her because of her cuteness is not our responsibility to stop. —Farix (t | c) 01:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree completely about the pornography. But at the same time, i could see where some are coming from with this. TO me, her current outfit is sexist. The current older version isn't so bad, and losing innocence? I think you're doing it a lil over the top. I like, playful and cheerful too. It's not like i'm asking a full-grown woman. You guys have to see things a lil more general.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the age, pose or character. I do agree that the use of a maid's costume is a problem for some, though. Personally, I didn't think french maid, and nor did my wife - her response was that the costume was Victorian, rather than specifically seeing it as a french maid - but this doesn't deny that other people could see things differently. However, to update the clothing shouldn't be a real problem, in that there is no particular relevance to the current clothing to Wikipedia, and an update could do no harm. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think older is ok, but I'm not asking for a fully grown woman, just a taller more wiser form, like i said the current older one looks right. I'm just saying we should make her older so she can also fit into areas the younger version can't. That and if we will redesign her older will help give her a more scholarly type. But if anything at most, we absolutely do have to update her attire at least.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping anyone from creating an older version of her, its just that the cute version is far more commonly drawn. Re: sexist outfit.... Having Wikipe-tan in a maid outfit is a multilayered joke. When you deal with some of the really badly mangled articles that are created for anime and manga, its nice to have her on your side with a handy mop. :D And we're anime and manga, we like maids. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

you only prove my point even further....Bread Ninja (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Your point is that a small minority are offended. Big deal. The Jyllands-Posten article offends hundreds, if not thousands, of people and it still carries the cartoon imagery. We're not here to not offend the easily offended and its a waste to even try to placate the fringe few. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

let's not get hostile here. Please be civil. This wouldn't be much of an issue if it wasn't used to an extent outside of it's own page. I'm just looking for a way to satisfy everyone to a degree. you're all taking this way too aggressive than it should.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

(conflict)I don't find being angered at being called an "undersexed basement dweller" by Tarc and his ilk, the suggestion that I'm a pedophile on the same MfD and being told that I'm somehow sexist due to being supportive of a cartoon picture is being "too aggressive". Actually, I'm rather calm for having my reputation dragged through the mud. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I personally think the real sexist attitude is in the idea that Wikipe-tan shouldn't be displayed in a maid outfit. But there are plenty of images of Wikipe-tan in other outfits, so the point is moot. And the only ones making her apparent age a problem just don't like her or her anime/manga background in the first place. —Farix (t | c) 03:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Actully both the clothes she has on and how old she is are both opinions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

my opinion towards her age, stems off her appearance to appear more scholarly and wise, to be a more accurate personification of wikipedia. And could you elaborate? this isn't the average mascot for a team or a restaurant.

@knowledgekid8, of course it is, that doesn't trump the fact that some people are offended. And to be honest, this entire thing is subjective. we can't use "oh it's an opinion" as a main point. of course it is, what do you expect for a subject such as this? to be honest, you guys have had various times to cave in, yet it's getting tot he point of repeating the same thing over and not trully grasping what each other is saying. though i do perfectly understand the situation, and if it wasn't a problem, it could be left alone. but that aside, it's not like that. problem is wikipe-tan is for the most part semi-official mascot whether anyone would like to say she isn't. Just because we would like something more appropriate, and you guys think is fine as it is, doesn't mean we could go one way or the other.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If people were happy on how everything on wikipedia is the world would be a better place, sadly the world does not work like that. There is always going to be "some people" offended. I agree on the sami-official mascot bit though, I think that should be looked into. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with krill on this one I think we should leave opinions behind and focus on wikipe-tan's status as a mascot here and on wikipedia as well as image placements. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

we're arguing over something highly subjective. you realize, that opinions are going to come in no matter what. who is krill?Bread Ninja (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be me, presumably. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The primary reason people are complaining about Wikipe-tan is simply because they don't like her because of her anime/manga inspired looks. No matter what we do with her appearance, they will not be satisfied with anything short of complete removal of her image from the encyclopedia. So there is no point in attempting to satisfy them. —Farix (t | c) 03:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me also add that I never actually supported Wikipe-tan as a mascot of Wikipeda. The fact that other editors outside of this project liked her and have adopted her into their projects is flattering, but its not the reason of her existence. But I fully support her as the mascot of this project. —Farix (t | c) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a comment by that user up in the comments a bit and it seems like you are the only one against mostly what people are saying. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

and how would you know that Farix? let's not assume anything. i really don't care if she's anime/manga inspired or not. in fact, it would not to make her anime/manga inspired and putting her on this wikiproject.

@knowledgekid8: I'm the only talking at the moment. this isn't done in real time, so you have no room saying such things.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I know it because it inevitably shows in their arguments against her. —Farix (t | c) 03:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you have to be more concrete than that. i see in some cases. but overall, this isn't to satisfy those who dislike the western version of anime. it doesn't matter if they will never be satisfied for that reason. the point is we have to make this most appropriate for a personification of wikipedia. Let's not use that as an excuse to leave it as is.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well a person could argue that wikipe-tan can be appropriate for a personification of wikipedia, this discussion however should be held elsewhere as it is beyond the project here - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"Most appropriate" is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I think she is completely appropriate as she is for this project. And frankly, I don't think those who are not part of this project have much of a say about this project's mascot apperance, so long as the mascot is not vulgar or patently offensive. If they don't like her, they don't have to adopt her. But it shouldn't affect their editing of Wikipedia in the slightest. The only creepy thing about this nonsense is that so many people are so obsessed with her despite not liking her. —Farix (t | c) 03:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. We don't HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. We, the Anime and Manga Wikiproject were gifted Wikipe-tan by Kasuga to use as our mascot and we seem to have a consensus that she's awesome. After we adopted her, others decided OMG SHE'S SO AWESOME and she became the de facto mascot for all of wikipedia. We didn't do anything, we didn't campaign to have her named, she wasn't elected, she just naturally slipped into the role. I think that the overall consensus is that she's a fitting mascot, with a very low number of people having issues with her for various reasons including perceived sexism, perceived sexualization, perceived pedophilia. Personally, I don't see those arguments as being valid nor any actual rules or guidelines or policies being broken by the WP: Anime and Manga using her as our mascot nor by Wikipedia as a whole using her as its unofficial mascot. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Meta: Would someone please tag this with an rfc tag? I think we need more voices here, although having this linked from the ANI board should be nice but more transparency is good eh? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

can you possibly rewrite that without saying it so bias? Very low? who are the high? theres been a significant ammount up to this point, but you guys are counting who's still in, not who voted. Like i said before, if she were truly unofficial, then this wouldn't be a problem. But the fact is she is being used outside into other articles and she is being used in this wikiproject. I'm perfectly fine with not having a mascot at all too, but not because of the fact that she is drawn by a western. Can we PLEASE, take this a lil less aggressive?Bread Ninja (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see the need for an RfC tag. Maybe contacting the Foundation, but outside that i don't think we need any outside opinion for our Wiki mascot. If others like her, they can adopt her as their mascot. If they don't, they don't have to.

The most I see here from what it seems there may be any consensus on is that she may need some more outfits than just the current default one (i still don't see the French maid connection, but to each their own). That shouldn't remove any of the existing version, but compliment it. I do think having her in some different outfits would be good, but they should make sense for what they are used for.陣内_Jinnai 04:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Not me, i'm saying we should change her default, to something less controversial. which isn't so hard.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how you can accomplish this without jumping into a time machine and going back to 2008 and convincing Kasuga to draw her in a different outfit. Wikipe-tan was born in her maidfuku. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Bread Ninja, I understand your concerns, but there's enough evidence out there that most of those people who are complaining aren't complaining about her looks; they are complaining because she's an anime image. Therefore any changes we do will not placate many of them. There will always be someone who complains because anything, even a few lines can be contorted to be viewed as a sexualized image in someone's mind. I'm not against having some more clothing options for her, but they should compliment, what exists already. In addition, changing her visage radically is likely to draw much unwanted attention and ire making this far worse than what they are now.陣内_Jinnai 04:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I only found one comment, towards westernize moe compared to eastern moe. but overall, even if that was so. I still think we should be able to do what we can. despite seeping through, and maybe it's their true intentions, maybe not. maybe they felt they can say something related to that but still hold the main reasoning of this discussion. what we can fix on is quite easy. What we can't, too bad.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a completely worthless discussion. All that has been discussed has nothing to do with generating encyclopedic content, and all these speculation and political correctness are creating needless drama. Wikipe-tan (drawn by a Japanese person) was adopted by many elements within Wikipedia out of their own will, and changing Wikipe-tan's default image (as in representation, not jpeg) would be imposing one "official" image onto the wills of the adopters who adored the current image. Nobody made Wikipe-tan out to be representative of all Wikipedia, the only mascot she is of officially is of this Wikiproject. Let's not make her to be more than she actually is. _dk (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's official and offends some, then you can see why an update is needed. (which i know it does, just not those have joined the page). It's official in the sense that it's used every where, it's just not official that we consider it one. Which means it could easily change. And this argument has been brought up, and i seriously don't know how it's valid. Then by this, we should avoid using all images of Wikipe-tan in all articles. I'm not saying delete the images, but I'm not saying updating is wrong either. And imposing wills of adopters who adored the current one? it's not like we're deleting images, just for the usage of the anime/manga, we would update her appearance. the lolicon shotacon images can be kept in her page and all pages where most appropriate, such as moe (slang) and Fan art.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's being used everywhere, then discuss the image where it is being used. On article space, I don't see why any update to her default image is necessary, since she shouldn't be used in a non-animanga context anyways. _dk (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That isn't a good enough reason. Trying to please the unpleasable is a futile act to begin with and should never be attempted; as for why I say that's the case, I've been in enough discussions to know there is are a number of people who really loathe anime, manga and video games being on Wikipedia there's a few more who also hate anything pop-culture related and broadly paint all of anime, manga and video games as "pop culture".

As I said before making a male counterpart could be useful if only because it could go on articles where Wikipe-tan is inappropriate because of her gender and having some additional outfits are fine, but the bottom line is we shouldn't tell people how to use her or worry how some might offend becasue someone will always be offended. Guess what, I'm offended that people think anime = saturday morning cartoons.陣内_Jinnai 04:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

but that's an opinion based on the voters, not the subject. And pop-culture or not, this discussion is just to make it appear more appropriate as a mascot. And like i said, how would we make a male equivalent with the current style of Wikipe-tan? your comparison is low, because it's not really used in an official way. If it offends people, we'll fix it to the point where it doesn't. like i said before, her main page could remain the same. it's just usage with the wikiproject is what i'm referring to. also articles that use her current version might be appropriate too. but the basic idea of her in this page, to represent wikiproject anime/manga could be done in a more accurate personification. could it not?Bread Ninja (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

BN, mine and others points are you will never be able to fix her enough except by deleting her entirely from Wikipedia. There will always be plenty of people offended she's even on Wikipedia as long as she's here. Also a lot of people would be offended by a lot of non-article stuff out there. I'm sure there would be people who are offended to learn there exists a WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch.<spanstyle="color:#00F;">陣内_Jinnai 05:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

my point is, we can do it to the point where it's not explicit content, or so. for example, the fan service image CAN be fixed. but people have to take the initiative. we shouldn't complain over these things? it doesn't matter if you the person, isn't offended, what matters is how can we make it so the numbers drop? Like i said, fix what we CAN. I would like a male counterpart equal to wikipe-tan but with the current, lolicon shotacon style she has, what can be done exactly? A servant? a janitor? these might be contraversial aswell. which is why i propsoe an update to wikpe-tan before having a male counterpart alongside. I'm also saying this for the sake of having a more exact personification of Wikipedia, of being more scholarly and wise. not just a clean up crew.

So here's my final proposal. We should change Wikipe-tans default appearance (int he wikiproject) to a more scholarly, wiser appearance, so that the male can also be worry free. THe point to my argument is to make less problems to wikipe-tan so it can be easier to add male counterpart.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought the idea was to make a little brother to Wikipe-tan, since he would be a newer unofficial mascot than she is. Silverseren^C 05:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Well the male counterpart I was planning to do was going to be a butler so whether or not people had problems with a maid outfit, it wouldn't be it shouldn't matter. As for the "servant" idea, i think that's a red hearing. As mentioned; i don't think too many people have an issue. As mentioned above, even others thought it wasn't a maid outfit (and I really didn't see it as one or at least one that's suppose to be "sexually arousing"), but I can see how some can. The only critisism that has come has been on her visage and some wording on her Wikipedia page about being "born" on a specific date and thus being creepy because of that kind of connatation. The former is a stylization issue which everyone has an issue with some form of art or another and if we are to represent anime/manga culture, moe is the most prevalent form; also you only heard from those who have a problem with her. Other than us here, and a few others, you didn't here from those who do like her so you're getting a skewed version of her contriversaliness. If anything, it appeared to me most people seem to be indifferent about her image, whether they dislike her or not. That tells me since there's no rules violation, that its likely a bunch of minority extremists trying to push their point-of-view on us.陣内_Jinnai 05:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

EDIT:@Silver - huh, didn't get an edit conflict. that's weird. Anyway, that was only a few people's ideas and was rejected because its opening a whole new can of worms. Making them look the same age is the most neutral way of handling things.陣内_Jinnai 05:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

.to me making them scholarly would be much more appropriate, despite the so-called never-satisfied people of anime/manga wikiproject. To me, i think those who don't like it (and have valid reason) are more important than those who like her. Moe being the most prevalent is highly subjective as well, unless you can actually prove it with results. even so lolicon doesn't need to be shown either. and i can't believe someone couldn't have seen that as a form of maid outfit or so. And let's not say "us". pushing their views will always happen, whether extremist or not. Still....imo a more accurate personification will do no harm, infact i don't see it do anything negative to this wikiproject. and like i said before, her current page can still keep all those images, just when it comes to this wikiproject, it just uses a different image that reflects this wikiproject more accurately.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a scholarly appearance, whatever the heck that is suppose to be, is any more appropriate than the maid outfit. Nor will it do anything to stop a very small minority of editors from complaining about Wikipe-tan. These people are "offended" by Wikipe-tan simply because she exists and she originated from the anime/manga sub-culture. "it just uses a different image that reflects this wikiproject more accurately". It's funny that the majority of our tasks are related to cleaning up messes left by gushing fans and vandals. And in that case the maid outfit is an accurate reflection of what we end up doing as editors. —Farix (t | c) 12:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

you're not even trying to listen at this point. and despite cleaning up, there are other things such as featured articles and GA articles out there aswell. which one do you prefer this wikiproject to be known as? you know what...you're not listening. i can tell from the first sentence. so i'll wait until someone else. merely existing, and being offended, is one thing, but it's either we make her more appropriate, or we don't use her at all for any official usage.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

let me make it clear.i don't care about wikipe-tan as a whole. just whatever she has in this wikiproject.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one who thinks her normal appearance is inappropriate for the Animanga project, so consensus is against you there. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

But in her own words "those who don't like it (and have valid reason) are more important than those who like her". I've not seen one valid reason yet to overturn what appears to be a snowball consensus in opposition to her stance. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither have I the whole thing as I have been saying 50 times seem to be from ones opinion and that is not much of an arguement, not everything on wikipedia people are going to like. This discussion looks to me like it is going around in circles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, well do you guys want a male counterpart, a wikipe-kun or whatever? If not, I won't bother as I have other RL stuff to do than use my time for something that won't be used, but if you do, I can make some time for something. Someone might also ask Kasuga on his Japanese page.

And yes, once again I go to Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!'s MfD and find more people complaining about its deletion with while also basically bashing Wikipe-tan's mere existance as annoying. There is overwhelming evidence that many (not all) of those who complain about items related to her are using arguments because they just don't like her to begin with..陣内_Jinnai 17:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I'll just jump in to say that I don't think there is anything inappropriate about Wikipe's current appearance. I also wouldn't mind a male counterpart. (Wiki-kun? Wikipe-kun?) We do have Wikipe and her sisters; might as well have a brother. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Support making Wikipe-kun a male counterpart that is the same age as wikipe-tan (I dont want to get into the whole age arguement so the same age is fine). What would we do with the new image though? Her sisters are just featured on wikie-tan's page should a male counterpart be made and just featured on wikipe-tan's page just so people dont complain that wikipe-tan is sexisit? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree on them being the same age. I could see Wiki(pe)-kun serving the same purpose as the sisters...Unless we wanted to use him for portions of anime and manga associated with males, such as shonen or seinen. Things that don't fall under such categories could just be Wikipe-tan on default. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've stated various reasons....i've been gone due to a very important meeting. But despite that, i really do believe those oppose are more favorable than those who say it's just fine (those who say it's just fine can settle for any change). think about it. and of course this is opinion. stop saying this situation isn't brought up by opinions.

Knowledgekid8, i feel when it comes to wikipetan, you can't truly absorb the situation at hand, you will reject everything against wikipe-tan no matter what. here are my reasons to changing 1) to fully grasp a more accurate personification, unlike the moe personifications, this is a site with a goal and certain status different from those such as OS-tans where they only represent PC consoles that can be used for practically anything. 2) to allow a favorable male counterpart that people won't complain so much. 3) to lower complaints to those who do feel her maid outfit is sexist, along with others who believe it maybe be provocative (not that i believe this).

There is an old saying, if it isnt broken dont fix it. This is a project about anime and manga so a moe personification in my opinion is fine as for the other projects as pointed out they liked the image so much it has been used in other areas of wikipedia so why change something because a handful of editors dont like it? I can say I dont like how images in some articles are stacked up am I going to wage a correctness war for it though.... No - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

again subjective. and considering there have been chances to fix it but refusing to believe it's broken. says alot. for the fan-fiction wikipe-tan drawing, is it so hard to just fix the breast exposure issue than refusing to say "it's fine as it is"? or maybe find a different way to express fan-service? same here.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I've also noticed, that when it comes to complaints, you guys dn't want to deal with it, which is why things get more controversial than they should.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your blatant appeals to emotion are too transparent to take seriously. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

i'm pretty straight forward. that's about it. i've said many things before, that dont go against some of the things you guys have said before, but refuse to accept what i'm trying to say.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That's mainly because all of us think you're wrong. Silverseren^C 03:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

that's not it, you think it's fine. and if there wasn't an issue before, i probably would've left it alone too. Problem is it is an issue, whther you want to believe it or not. And don't say "all". like i said, you're counting the people still talking, not the voters.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The voters are voting on a page of additional, unnecessary images of Wikipe-tan, which I agree shouldn't be around. They are not voting on the existence of Wikipe-tan or whether they belief she should be changed. Thus, the voters have nothing to do with this discussion. Silverseren^C 03:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Just a question. For those that are complaining about her wearing a maid outfit. Do you even know why she's wearing a maid outfit? It's because she is a part of the "cleaning up wikipedia" campaign, which is why she was picked up by the Counter-Vandalism Unit and other groups that deal with vandalism or gnome editing. That was the entire purpose of the maid outfit, which is also often depicting her with a mop or broom, cleaning. Silverseren^C 02:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• • i knew that for a while, but to have it as the default image is another thing.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The whole "she's wearing a maid's outfit because she is cleaning up Wikipedia" is a bit sexist, and I don't think its helping your point. Also, I'd like to point out that in the numerous times that Wikipe-tan's image was contested on individual cases, there was a general pile-on...and, in the cases that the discussion makes its way to ANI, the discussion is then moved back to the project space, where it is suggested that people who dislike Wikipe-tan take it up on the individual article pages where the image is used. Do you see a circular pattern here? David Able 03:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

So...if Wikipe-tan was a boy cleaning up Wikipedia, it would be okay? Just because it's a girl cleaning does not make it sexist. Unless you think girls should never clean anything because that's sexist or are we talking role reversal here or equality or what? None of these have anything to do with the reason for why Wikipe-tan was created. Silverseren^C 03:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Saying that though is like saying that the wikipedia logo is racisit because it is more white than black. As for other discussions about wikipe-tan that does not hold much as I can say that the reason for the pattern is because there is no consensus on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No i don't think a boy doing manual labor would do much justice too...which is why i proposed changing the default look (in this wikiproject) in to something more scholarly, so that a male could take up. A servant or a butler isn't even equal up to a maid. And David Able, im referring to any images used inside this wikiproject. As for racist, if it were to come up, than an African-American version can be made. Don't act like this is a hassle for you guys. countless versions of wikipe-tan have been made, this isn't any different. If you truly have an issue with that it can be fixed. A girl cleaning isn't the problem, but portraying this wikiproject as so, is.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"A servant or a butler isn't even equal up to a maid." - that is a sexist remark since historically butlers and maids held similar rankings in social status and have had similar amounts of sexualization applied to them.陣内_Jinnai 03:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No. It's because it's a stereotype. It doesn't have anything to do if she was a boy or a girl. And you guys were the one who brought it up the "meaning" of the outfit BTW. As far what Wikipe-tan was created for, the party line is that she is a free use image for ani-manga related subjects. The perception (by some, me included) is that she is very close to the line of being child exploitation, and in some of the image variations, well across that line. I'm going to make a horrible analogy here, but take Michael Jackson. Was he just a child at heart, and loved children so much that he would have sleep overs with them? Or was he a raging pedo? I don't know. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But ask the average Joe what he/she thinks MJ's motivations were. My point is, despite your assertations, perception is reality. And we're all here supposedly to benefit an encyclopedia. Not disparage it. David Able 03:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment I feel this should be closed no progress is being made here editors have made their comments and are standing their ground and this is not a battleground for this. I do not think a consensus can be reached here if it involves a major change as most editors are against it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Seconded, too many appeal to emotion and appeal to fear fallacial arguments. But... think of the children! *rolls eyes* Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

sigh....count the voters, not the ones who are currently discussing too. and with constant sarcasm, seemingly intentional misunderstandings, and half-baked reasoning against my comment. you all make it really difficult to discuss this.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What voters? I don't see a vote taking place here. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't bother making horrible analogies, no one is going to take seriously. And Jinnai, reread my comment. i never said social. I'm talking about manual labor, the maid has different task that the butler doesn't, the maid and butler aren't equal most of the time. but it seems like these misunderstandings are coming in from half-baked readings. it almost seems like it's intentional. why don't we wait 15-20 seconds before each post. I'm just looking out for those who are offended by it (not because of thfact that it's wikipe-tan). Is that so wrong?Bread Ninja (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't bother responding to my post if you're going to be a jerk about it. I think that "perception is reality" is the very problem we have here. I personally don't have any problem with a cute kid being the mascot of Wikipedia. I do have a problem with the problematic variations that have been created based on her. David Able 04:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

When you say problematic variations on images can you refer to some examples? Some are used in the articles as legit examples while others that are just on user's profiles and can always be userfied. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

it's called taking a hint. bring something worth elaborating. If not, then don't bother saying anything at all. and being a jerk? let's not say anything about that, it's been getting to that point for some time. I only have a problem with it because it's not an accurate representation of wikipedia (as it's based off moe anthormorphism which was a bad decision to choose this as a seemingly unofficial mascot). Userfying them could be done. Still i don't see the problem with my suggestion. Against it, because you dont see a problem but others do....Bread Ninja (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to have us change our mascot's dress, please provide a suitable replacement. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

So you will be willing to accept an appearance change? well i'm glad i got through. Anyways....my skills in art, aren't the best, it would be best for the original creator to draw one up. but i was thinking of a skirt below knee. sweater vest, with a puzzle shape tag name and glasses along with a book. the male counterpart can take similar appearance only khaki pants instead. if you want me to draw it miyself i could, and present it to the original creator.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No one is against replacing the image with a superior one. We just don't see the immediate need for one. In regards to the original artist, we are not certain that s/he's active or available. I believe s/he was notified of this by someone higher in this discussion. Personally, I'm up for hot librarian Wikipe-tan.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand...her appearance will be strictly conservative and will e alongside the male counterpart which is the same age as her.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about an image like Yuki nagato? File:Yuki Nagato.jpg - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Similar, but not exactly to that. as she is wearing a school uniform, i'm talking about more of a desk-job attire.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

But then there is the whole desk secretary sterotype. If you were to make a new image where would it be used? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be demanding rather than suggesting and even worse, demanding we meet some sort of moral code. I'm sorry, but did you miss WP:NOTCENSORED. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

ok, the moment you realize what you're getting into, you retract. this is all being talked hypothetical. And, I'm not talking about the stereotypical secretary either......the stereotypical secretary intentionally looks lustful. please reread my description>Bread Ninja (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not retracting. I'm just pointing out that you're not suggesting, you're demanding. You are saying "I don't like the current, mysognistic maid Wikipe-tan and you MUST meet my puritanical demands or you're a big meanie." There is no room for compromise with you, its either Bread Ninja's way or the highway. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What gave you that idea! of course i would push for my idea, but it's the same for you guys. there's no compromise between us unless we do. and you are retracting. we were going somewhere, and you suddenly gave me the "you're demanding" line on me. this is why i ask people to wait 15-20 seconds before posting, because not everyone fully grasp the situation, and reply by instinct by how the comment may have sounded but not trully implied.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Why are we even talking about changing her outfit? Wikipe tan has lots of images with diffrent outfits already. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

just for this wikiproject is what I'm referring to. the rest of the outfits should be complimentary. the maid outfit shouldn't be the default one as it already has had issues. if it were complimentary, i dont think there would be much issues. it could still keep the moe anthropomorphism in it though. But yeah. you also joined in...Bread Ninja (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

In what areas do you want the maid image replaced though? It should not be all or nothing here if there is going to be no default image. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

the main wikiproject page. where it shows her in a schoolgirl outfit and in a maid outfit. which could be considered official usage to the page. lolicon in general and moe are used to fill in free content in articles where free-content is needed, so i can't say delete those images. It could also be done somewhere in the barnstar awards, but i'm not pushing that one enough to argue. if you agree, great. if not, then i won't mind. basically everything that isn't related to maids that is related to the wikiproject.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think many people would be open to using different images in principle; but nobody is going to make a decision until someone actually draws some new images for everyone to consider. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 06:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal from article and portal space

I hereby propose removing all images of Wikipe-tan from article space and portal space unless there are third-party external sites which indicate that the image is actually an illustration of the subject being illustrated. This is to avoid the self-promotion going on here by fans.

IvoryMeerkat (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• i think it's a good solution to avoid any hints of official usage of the unofficial mascot. and people can forget about her in this wikiproject.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Third party external sites? What? That is a really stupid idea. We are already likely to be deleting the Think of Wikipe-tan page, which will remove all of the "self-promotion", regardless of the fact that most, if not all, of the images of Wikipe-tan used in article and portal space are images that were purposefully made for those purposes by the original creator or by Wikipedia editors. Silverseren^C 05:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipe-tan helps wikipedia through image examples and is a proper mascot for the wikipedia manga and anime project. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose There's no valid reason to even consider this drastic step. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Basically what the others have said. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I question if this even is being done in good faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • how drastic is this step realy? removing it from the main wikiproject pages, such as the portals and such wouldn't be so bad. in most articles thing that represent anime or manga terms uses an eye. i dont think it's that bad. Even if they were meant to be made for those areas, it doesn't mean we have to keep them there. I'm just saying, this is also a solution. we don't have to have a mascot that pushes itself as official>Bread Ninja (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It probably doesn't matter all that much, to be honest. We should be able to provide legitimate reasons for using the images regardless of why someone might be motivated to question their presence. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 06:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Unlike articles, portals are permitted to include purely decorative elements; use of the image in portal space would be legitimate under those grounds, regardless of whether the image necessarily qualifies as an accurate illustration of the subject.

  As far as use in articles is concerned, original images are permitted by policy so long as they are not used to illustrate unpublished concepts or ideas. Uses such as the one on catgirl easily pass this test; the concept is both concrete and precisely defined, and the image obviously and clearly depicts it.

  The only question, in my mind, are uses to illustrate less concrete concepts such as moe; it's not clear whether the drawings in question are necessarily canonical representations of such concepts, given the vagueness with which they are defined, or even whether these drawings were intended to illustrate the concepts in the first place. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 06:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

  • There's a NFC issue here. Clearly, there's likely a source that points to, oh, say, Yotsuba, as moe, and it would be 100% correct to say that including an image of that character is demonstrating moe. But from an NFC standpoint, as the moe concept (as well as other ones) can be illustrated based on established copyright examples, we should have a freely licensed version. The question as pertains to the original issue is that moe-ification (which some see as a sexual aspect) of Wikipedia as Wikipe-tan misrepresenting Wikipedia? Or, to put it another way, if we agree that a free image of Wikipe-tan can be a free replacement for a non-free, established moe character, can we not get a generic character, still a free images, to remove the "wikipedia representation" from it? That might be something to consider. Would this apply to every use of Wikipe-tan across main space? Hell no (eg File:Wikipe-tan visual novel (Ren'Py).png is a great use of W-tan to replace an otherwise non-free computer game screenshot.) Only on the mainspace articles where there may issues should we even be considering this, but its case by case, and I'd tend not to remove the existing images just because a minority sees a problem. --MASEM (t) 06:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Fan art

Fan art. I propose that the image included here is unduly self-promotional of Wikipe-tan. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're focusing too much on the "self-promotional" concern; in the context of the NFCC rules, use of an original image does not necessarily violate policy, even if such an image implicitly promotes Wikipedia.

Having said that, I think there's a different concern that needs to be addressed here. The article defines fan art as "artwork that is based on a character... that was created by someone other than the artist" (emphasis mine), but the image was created by the original creator of Wikipe-tan. We'd either need to use a Wikipe-tan image drawn by someone else, or make an explicit comparison of this drawing to whatever the original might be. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 06:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a fairly good point. However, I'm not sure that we can actually verify this anyway. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is easily accomplished, however, I believe that in this case Wikipe-tan is fan art of Wikipedia itself rather than being used as fanart of Wikipe-tan herself. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Bishōjo game

Bishōjo game. I propose that the image used here is entirely self-promotional and is not, in fact, an actual example of the subject it is claiming to illustrate. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Adventure game

Adventure game. Similar to the above: entirely self-promotional and not an actual example. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Window sitter

Window sitter. I propose that this is not an actual window sitter, but is simply an amalgamated illustration. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep Image is illustrative of the concept of a window sitter and is justifiable as a replacement for a non-fair use image. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Commnet the article doesn't even seem notable enough. so it could be removed.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Catgirl

Catgirl. I propose that this illustration is not fully-illustrative of the concept and is essentially derivative. Needlessly self-promotional. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep per Kirill's assessment above. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

1. What portions of the concept are not illustrated by this? As far as I can tell, it's a reasonably canonical variant.
2. What is this illustration derivative of? (I assume you're arguing it constitutes a "derivative work" in copyright terms, but I'm not sure what the alleged source might be.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 06:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Generally, the costuming is fairly nonstandard.
2. [2].

IvoryMeerkat (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep Clearly shows a catgirl and, as it is made by Wikipedia editors, is a free image that is preferred over non-free alternatives. Silverseren^C 06:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Japanese school uniform

Japanese school uniform. Entirely unnecessary and confusing as to what the utility is beyond self-promotion. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

ok i can agree to this one. this image is completely useless.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Chibi (term)

Chibi (term). Not actually a very good illustration of such, I'd say. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep However, your critique of the piece of art is noted. A subjective measure such as "this is not a very good illustration" is certainly not a reason to remove an image. I find most of Picasso's pieces to be horrible rendered reproductions of what he's drawn, but that doesn't make them any less valuable. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ren'Py

Ren'Py. I do not believe this was actually created in that environment. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The image description page states that it was indeed created using Ren'Py; I see no particular reason to disbelieve the assertion. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 06:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is the Ren'Py novel then? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not terribly familiar with how Ren'Py works, but is there some reason it would be impossible to create a single dialog frame without generating the entire novel content? Given the history, I would assume that the creator only wished to produce a suitable illustration, not necessarily an entire work. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 06:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep Your assumption of bad faith is showing. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

'Commentthis article also holds no notability. if it could be improved to a degree where an image is needed. maybe. though i also agree, if the image was done using ren'Py than i is perfectly acceptable.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep According to it, it says that it was made is Ren'Py, therefore it is a proper representation of such. Silverseren^C 06:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Visual novel

Visual novel. Similar to the above. The image is not what it purports to be, actually. It's a lie. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• This could be easily resolved by editing the caption to make it clear that this is an image from a visual novel engine rather than a complete visual novel, I think. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 06:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Are all derivative uses of this engine released properly? I honestly cannot tell. If not, then the image might need to be deleted as non-free. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Fansub

Fansub. It's almost impossible for me to tell what this is supposed to indicate: a film about Wikipe-tan was made and then was translated??? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Fan service

Fan service. Without comment. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)