Talk:Cosplay/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Images

They're all Asian. Point: Bring in some variety. KyuuA4 17:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Most cosplayers Live in asia. It's more or less still a japanese trend, although it does apear more frequently in the west nowadays, it's reserved for conventions over here, anyway, I think the aisian-ness of the pictures is fine, however I have a very good picture of a cosplay, if you're going to make that big a deal out of it. ~Sana (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

They haven't all been Asian in a long time. By far the most of them are women, though. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. =) JIP | Talk 17:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Last paragraph biased

If cosplay is labeled as a general subculture - as opposed to a Japanese subculture, the bias would be lessed or eliminated al-together. 75.34.36.42 19:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The last paragraph seems tacked on and biased. It would be helpful if someone familiar with the controversy were to edit it.

I am not familiar with the controversy, but I think it's quite obvious that the paragraph simply doesn't belong in this article. So I moved it here for now. If this information is important and interesting (to me it doesn't look like), it should go into a separate article (or an article on one of these organisations). Paranoid 22:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In 2004, there's been a rise of people filming cosplay events at anime conventions and then uploading and hosting them on their personal websites. Deathcom Multimedia and memories.com Cosplay Memories are two examples. On October 1st 2004, Otakon, the largest anime convention in the United States, released a statement that can be found here stating that they sent a request to Deathcom Multimedia to remove all Otakon cosplay recordings from their website and Deathcom had removed all Otakon cosplay recordings. Otakon states their reasoning behind the move is in that fair use standards permit excerpts of Otakon's cosplay events for journalistic/review purposes but it does not allow for distributing the entire cosplay event on the internet, Otakon's interpetation of fair use standards can be debated and could be controversial. Otakon continues to state that if a site wants to distribute their cosplay event online, they must not only obtain Otakon's permission, but the permission from the cosplayers who were recorded and the copyright holders of the character who the cosplayer is cosplaying as, Otakon states that gaining permission from the cosplayers and copyright holders are the main reason why they are unable to host the event themselves, Otakon states that if they and Deathcom just host the cosplay events without doing the required things, they are subject to the risk of legal action by either or both the cosplayers and the copyright holders. Otakon continued that it is their hope to "come to some sort of arrangement going forward, but at this time it is not possible for Otakon to condone the redistribution of our cosplay and masquerade contests (or any other event)."

---

Besides dressing up for public events such as anime conventions There are no anime conventions in Japan, so this should be made more precise. The prime destination for cosplayers in Japan would be Comic Market. Comic Market is not a convention, let alone an anime convention. And then, Comic Market considers itself fundamentally a dojinshi market, and they make sure it stays that way.--Outis 12:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

.... Hi to above poster- you are right! I am a Japanese cosplay fan, have edited the page to reflect the kinds of events in Japan better, see what you think?

I'm pretty sure Comic Market is still the event that the most number of cosplayers show up at, ie, the biggest cosplay event. If a cosplay-specific event surpasses Comic Market in the number of attending cosplayers, they'll surely claim that. At that point, cosplay will be its own subculture orthogonal to otaku subculture. Point is that the only thing that comes close to a fan convention as known in the US are science fiction conventions.

But to be more constructive, we can list up what events cosplayers go to. There are cosplayers at science fiction conventions, but they tend to be few. They go to Comic Market. Besides Comic Market, cosplayers go to other otaku hobbyist markets such as Wonder Festival. They go to cosplay-specific events that are held in the exhibit hall of a convention center or in the event hall at an amusement park. They've been showing up at consumer shows such as Tokyo Game Show. On the other hand, tradeshows like the Tokyo Anime Fair (TAF) ban cosplay.

Strangely enough, plenty of exhibitors at TAF have booth staff cosplaying their very own employer's characters. The so-called maid cafes and cosplay cafes, abundantly found in Akihabara, have cosplaying employees. More importantly, both the business and customers recognize it as cosplay, a perceptual distinction from seeing an employee parade as Snow White or Alice at Disneyland. And then, some cosplayers get paid to model for cosplay publications now. These are some areas where cosplay has bled into commercial territory.--Outis 23:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The above is relevant and very interesting, and should perhaps be incorporated into the article. --Eyeresist 02:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Cosplayer websites

Should this subsection be removed? It seems only to exist to promote individual cosplayers (i.e. vanity), and does not really supplement the information in the article, in my opinion. -Yipdw 10:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

How long is this game of Filipino revert tennis going to go on? Gentaur 06:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Password-protected pages are hardly useful resources on an open reference site. They just create a negative user experience. Mikeabundo 01:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not password protected, just protected from all editing other than by administrators (who aren't really supposed to edit protected pages without a consensus on the talk page). It's protected temporarily to enforce a cool down because of the silly edit war. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

He isn't referring to the fact that the page has been password protected; see the comments below for further information. -- Altaecia 14:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Mikeabundo - it is not your prerogative in any case to repeatedly delete the link without using the talk page or discussion page to justify your claims, as doing so could have averted the whole edit war. I suggest a more thorough review of wikipedia policies, for you and the other party involved. Personally, I have found that many webpages, cosplay or otherwise, require user registration, but still remain a valid resource. I would also like to point out, if I may, that the term "password-protected pages" you used to describe the site has an entirely different context from pages that simply require user registration. The website link in question belongs to the latter category, rather than the former. Mirshariff 02:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Mikeabundo has a form of vendetta against Filcosplay. Late last year, he purchased www.filcosplay.com as seen [here] soon after there were discussions about purchasing a domain name in Filcosplay (where he was registered at the time). Now, it appears he is determined to repeatedly delete Filcosplay's link in Wikipedia. If Filcosplay's automatic registration is as terrible as he makes it out to be, it should fail on its own without Mikeabundo having to engage in a smear campaign. He should let his own forum and Filcosplay stand on their own merits, and he should not use Wikipedia as his own personal battleground. He may have a right to silence everyone with a dissenting viewpoint in his own forum, but Wikipedia does not belong to him alone. --Keroberos 05:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to require Sherlock Holmes to detect some bad blood in the Filipino cosplay set, but doesn't the dispute essentially boil down to: which web sites(s) is/are the most notable in that country? If one is clearly moreso than the other, it would seem sensible to list only that one: no other country has more than one such site listed as being specific to it. Or are there other issues afoot that I'm missing? Alai 06:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

For Alai: What then are the pre-requisites to determine the most notable cosplay community of that country? If you are factoring in the length of the website's existence, the number of members, and the site most recognized within the Philippines, then filcosplay is the clear winner. Furthermore, Mikeabundo has acquired an unsavory reputation within the cosplay and other similar communities, and has shown himself not above deleting or editing posts that seem to contradict his own, notably that in his own forums. Evidence regarding what Keroberos has posted so far can be supplied if asked for. However, I am a concerned party in this matter, and to prevent bias on my part, I ask an administrator to please investigate this matter. I can provide contact information from different non-cosplay communities within the Philippines and you can ask them yourself for their own opinions regarding Mikeabundo, if it should even come down to that. I can also provide screenshots and the like regarding posts he has written himself, and his other attempts against filcosplay, all brought about in attempts to further his own forums. Feel free to suggest other means of contact that you can suggest, if you would like more details regarding this whole fiasco. Unlike the user in question, we have nothing to hide. --Altaecia 13:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Those would be not unreasonable criteria, yes. Essentially if you asked people knowledgeable about the scene there, "what's the cosplay community website for the Philippines", and the proverbial four out of five cats said "site X", then I'd think it would be sufficient to list "site X" only, as this article is not by any means supposed to be an exhaustive link farm. If other person want to list "site Y" simply because it's their personal preference (or some other such motivation), that's not especially compelling. I'd prefer to see some further input on this, to be clearer as to whether there's a consensus version yet, before I unprotect, though feel free to make a request elsewhere if you're not happy with that. Mikeabundo, if you disagree with the above, please contribute to this discussion. I don't see any prima facie evidence anyone here's done anything worse than mildly edit war, in what I will assume for now is a good-faith fashion: people's conduct outside wikipedia ought not be germane to this article, though I can sympathise with people that might have "prior issues", one way or the other. Alai 18:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparing the registered account numbers of an open-browsing forum and a required-registration forum is like comparing apples and oranges. Moreso even, if the required-registration forum clearly allows duplicate accounts. How many of those registered accounts are inactive, lurking, or duplicate (or triplicate, or quadruplicate, or quintiplicate)?

Age isn't a reliable criterion, either. Though Friendster came before Myspace, assuming Friendster to be the market leader based on that fact is questionable at best. Mikeabundo 01:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

So what's your precise claim? That both are about equally notable? That your site is moreso? Alai 06:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

All the concerns you brought up regarding duplicate accounts also applies to your own forums, Mikeabundo. No one administrator can truly boast of a forum with absolutely no duplicate accounts whatsoever. The fact that you frequently allude to and link topics from filcosplay to further your own forum threads (which I consider ironic) seem to indicate which forum has the more information of the two, and having the most information I believe, should be the best prerequisite. At the very least, threads and posts are never deleted in the Filcosplay forums for whatever reason, even if said posts contradict the opinions of its forum moderators, because members have a right to their posts. Can you say the same? The fact that some of the evidence we can offer as proof to your personal character can come from some of your own forum moderators, who have tried repeatedly to convince you of reaching a compromise, to no avail. In any case, we have done nothing to delete nor edit your forums link in the wikipedia until you began deleting ours with no explanation (and only after several attempts to re-add the link, only to have them deleted again the space of a few hours.)

Alai; the Filcosplay forum has no complaint against having both links up in the cosplay article. Mikeabundo obviously does, and therein lies the problem, and the main reason for the edit war. - Altaecia 13:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

An open, actively administered forum, accessible to more than just one registered group, is far more useful as an information resource on Wikipedia.

The question, then, becomes this: Do we cite an old, buggy, unadministered, limited-access forum because a handful of its registered users may have some niche historical significance -- or do we cite an actively administered, openly accessible forum because of its currency and usefulness as a living information resource?

Perhaps Altaecia is right that there is room for both, but each in the proper context.

By the way, Altaecia, Filcosplay fanatics calling Pinoy Cosplay "small" and Filcosplay "Largest and Premiere: Saving the World One Costume at a Time" doesn't help end the edit war, either. ;) Mikeabundo 14:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Define 'proper context'. Define 'old' in the term you use to describe the filcosplay forums. Define 'unadministered" - there are more moderators in Filcosplay than in your forums. Our administrator is currently present and is in contact with the rest of the moderators. You have a habit of saying a lot of big words, but with ambiguous meanings. And may I remind you that the Filcosplay members only began adding that term after the seventh or eighth time you have deleted their link in the article, out of frustration towards you, as I have mentioned previously - the history pages of the cosplay article are proof of that.

I also find it hypocritical how you imply that Filcosplay is an obsolete site, despite using Filcosplay threads and cosplay events mentioned in (the very active) Filcosplay as fodder for your own forums. Isn't it ironic that you - who claims Filcosplay to be an old, buggy, unadministered, limited-access forum - was ALSO a member until recently, when the Filcosplay moderators had to ban you for your behavior and actions against them regarding questionable domain names, as well as attempting to lure Filcosplay members in the forum to your own forums by posting your site links within the threads of conversation in the Filcosplay forum, often times in a blatant manner through hotlinking and making off-topic posts that pertain to your own forum site? I am citing this here because I think another prerequisite should be the reputation and good standing of the forum owner in question among like-minded communities. A majority of the Filipino cosplay community as a whole would not want a forum whose owner acts in such a manner to be their wikipedia representative. Altaecia 14:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Filcosplay has come up with variables to support their claim such as number of members (I think more than triple), length of operation, greater number of posts (about 10x more posts), and a greater library of information. Mikeabundo has insisted that these variables are not germaine to the argument. Siting, as far as I can see, required registration as his sole defense. Yet, if required registration was so delibitating, I think it would cease to exist, and, as a result, Filcosplay would be extinct rather than the thriving vehicle of information exchange that it is today. I agree that, to a certain degree, Pinoycosplay.com and Filcosplay are apples and oranges, but I think even a child can compare an apple the size of a watermelon to an orange the size of a pea.

Is there evidence to support the fact that Filcosplay is buggy and unadministered? If so, please support your statements with evidence. Automatic registration is hardly limited-access unless you are talking about the mod-only topics. Please support your allegations with facts and numbers rather than throwing unquantifiable generalizations.--Keroberos 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

China has a larger population than America. It also has a longer history. Does that make China the only superpower, Keroberos?

Filcosplay's founder and only administrator hasn't made a member-visible post in months. A Pinoy Cosplay member, registered on Filcosplay, complains of Filcosplay's bugs. Filcosplay's own members complain that its search engine doesn't work and its GUI customizations break up in IE. Filcosplay's founder and only administrator has lamented that Filcosplay is turning into a separate group, instead of a service to the Filipino cosplay community. Mikeabundo 14:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Mikeabundo, I guess your argument is that facts and numbers don't matter. All you've brought up are comparisons that don't even have anything to do with the subject. For every claim, there should be criteria based on logic, facts, and substantive evidence. All you're saying is that all the facts don't matter. What does then? --Keroberos 14:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but facts do matter, Keroberos. Here are a few more facts for you.

How many unique visitors can view Filcosplay after over a year of existence? 1,102, maximum.

How many unique visitors have viewed Pinoy Cosplay in less than a quarter of growth? 17,582.

Suddenly, that orange doesn't look like a pea, does it? ;) Mikeabundo 14:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. Can someone please explain to Mikeabundo that unique hits is not a valid comparison to number of members? As to the issues, I'm sure Filcosplay has issues and it's there for the members to see. That's what you do with issues in a forum, you air them. The reason why there are no issues with Pinoycosplay is that you delete them. I guess that's one advantage Pinoycosplay has over Filcosplay, they have no issues to discuss while in Filcosplay issues are tackled and argued. Perhaps that's what makes Pinoycosplay superior. --Keroberos 14:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

And there's the rub. People go to Wikipedia for information, not site issues. Mikeabundo 14:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Information that you have gotten from a site you claim is obsolete, in a forum decidedly Orwellian by nature. Though I am glad to see you posting links to your site again during the thread of conversation in the hopes people are curious enough to click them, which I had stated above, as yet another proof of my claims against you. And you are contradicting yourself. If people go to wikipedia for information rather than site issues, then why are you stating Filcosplay's site issues (including required registration) as a reason to exclude it from the links? We know you are aware that Filcosplay offers more information as a whole. After all, you take that information for your site as well.

I think any administrators viewing this discussion has seen enough to act accordingly. Filcosplay again, has no problem with both links appearing on the page; the other side still wants to contend with the issue and apparently has no intention of compromising. Claims for and against have been given, and further proof (on the part of Filcosplay at least) will be provided if asked for. - Altaecia 15:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Filcosplay lacks information. Philippine cosplay event organizers announce and propose events on Pinoy Cosplay without mentioning them on Filcosplay. Mikeabundo 2:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This admin only wishes. The above discussion seems to largely be about which site ought to be the more notable, not which actually is, and it's hard to discern much of a consensus without somewhat wider input. Which is the more written about, the more linked-to? If the current feeling is to include both, is there any agreement about how each should be characterised? Alai 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Some registered Filcosplay users may have some niche historical significance. Buried among Filcosplay's site issues is one year's historical record of that local group's growing pains, if you care to register for that.

A Wikipedia user who wants timely, accessible information and discussion about the global Filipino cosplay scene is best served by Pinoy Cosplay. Mikeabundo 2:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A wikipedia user wants the notable relevant external links, and you're not even trying to address that question, but would instead appear to be rationalising "bigging up" your own link. I'm unprotecting in the hope, rather than the expectation, that some sort of consensus will emerge. I'll be checking back in to ensure revert-warring hasn't broken out again. Alai 02:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to deal with facts rather than conjecture in this case. FACT: Filcosplay contains more information about more events. Event announcements are screened first before posting, ensuring that event information is valid (unlike the other site who actually provided false information about future events that had to be corrected by the event organizers to their dismay). FACT: Filcosplay tackles more issues concerning cosplay including event logistics, judging system, costume construction, and yes, as Mikeabundo claims, issues concerning local cosplay groups and clubs. FACT: Filcosplay contains more experienced cosplayers who have written articles and tutorials (not only in their forums but also in circulated publications) as well as who answer questions concerning how to construct costumes using various types of material including rubber, foam, acrylic polimers, as well as cloth. FACT: Filcosplay members have acquired more awards, citations, and have in fact been tapped by more organizers (including a local cable channel) who wish to organize cosplays locally. Mikeabundo would confuse you and convince you that all this is "niche historical information", I beg to differ. Mikeabundo would rather you compare statistics that have absolutely nothing to do with each other such as Unique Hits versus Number of Members. I would rather you weigh the facts, and make your own conclusions. That is my last word on the matter. I agree that the reverts were ludicrous, and, as I have said my peace, I will allow Wikipedia to deal with further matters as they see fit. --Keroberos 08:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Could people please proofread entries and correct them before saving? The constant going back and fixing errors or arguments one at a time looks like edit spam. Thanks. Gentaur 21:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea: INCLUDE A LINK TO EACH OF THE TWO SITES! For God's sake, people. It's called "compromise". Each site seems to have its benefits and its downsides, and Filcosplay has been around longer and has a lot of street cred... the other site, well, apparently it's getting there, and is slightly more active forums-wise. Good then. They both have a reason for being here, and two ain't exactly much more than one, if both are active and notable for different reasons. Link them both and stop clogging up the discussion page with your rants. Jeez. 63.21.32.46 06:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

i am a member of both FilCosplay and PinoyCosplay and it is true that Mike Abundo has something against FilCosplay. more known around the Philippines is FilCosplay.tk, as PinoyCosplay came only after it. However, i do believe it should be brought to the attention here that many members of PinoyCosplay are moving/have moved to a different cosplayer site (run by cosplayers) due to a very big falling-out with Mike Abundo. the new website is found at: link removed due to blacklistiing just so you know. ^_^

mike abundo kaboom

Shivery timbers! What on earth have you done here mikeabundo? First of all, Cosplay in the Philippines only evolved only in Manila. The thing is its not as BIG as other cosplay events in the world. I can only name few cosplayers from Luzon like Joanna(Neitaro) from Pampanga and Keena from Cavite(both provinces are 40-50 kms away from Manila, oh I forgot they are girls maybe mike would add them to his photo collection), those from Visayas and Mindanao...I don't know it would be expensive if they go to Manila just to participate, but I know some Filipino-Americans who participate and for sure, they have deep pockets. Some Filcosplay members originated from Cosplayersworld CPM), a yahoo mailing list in 2001. They are the pioneers/founders of Filipino Cosplay. Members like eva_guy01, hazelmisao, yatenkou, officer_fujita et al. can be seen on both sites. Cosplay events from 2001 to present is archived on the ml's photo album. I know coz some of the organizers (e.g. Vincent Ternida) hang-out near to my place until dawn just to tackle their plans. They organized the FIRST Anime on Ice, Anime Summer Sports and Anime Prom night and what have you done mr abunda (haha) i mean abundo? You bought Filcosplay domain so you can takeover and do whatever you want. Who do you think you are? That puffhaired-tub of lard, Kim Jong Il? Well, both of you heavily wants attention. Are you lack of Social interaction? According to your wikipedia contributions you tried to create an article about YOURSELF (WP:vanity Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Abundo...good thing it was deleted. You are proud of you're heritage you even created an article about your mother Tisha_Abundo, Is you're mom aware that you are so BAAAAAD these days? Wikipedia is not FHM to shed some skin. I'll replace that pic with the "best" chii cosplayer ever (I hope everyone will agree). PS: Everyone in Filcosplay ridiculed mikeabundo check link removed due to blacklistiing Kamuixtv 07:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but.... um, what? Please be a little more succint, as I didn't understand much of what you said. I do understand though, that the talk page is not for bashing other members of the forum, and neither is this the appropriate place to host personal attacks, no matter how justified you feel you are in doing so. I do understand that there seem to be some issues that have yet to be resolved here, but these type of conflicts are better resolved in private. I have noticed that a lot of text in this site are surreptitiously linked to the user in question in some way, and I'm sure some of the higher-ups shall attend to removing vanity add-ons as soon as they can. I'll try to edit this myself if no one else will. Mirshariff 07:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What is?

Umm, this seems like a stupid question, but what exactly do cosplays involve? There seems to be a lot of information in the article about the general culture surrounding the practice, but very little information on what, exactly, cosplay involves, which I would think that such an article should really have some information on... --220.237.63.43 13:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

cpvio

Pictures on this page are mostly CP vio. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The most eggregious picture, Francesca Dani, is now tagged (falesly, I believe) as promo. This article is not about Francesca Dani, and the picture must be removed. Can the first adminstrator reading this please remove the image? Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Too many external links

There's way too many external links on this article. Pretty much all of the Cosplayers links appear to be vanity pages, and some pretty poor ones at that. Can we just remove those?

The Community sites are a valuable resource, but they need more sorting and better descriptions. bz2 18:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the links to personal sites of cosplayers should be deleted. Just because they cosplay doesn't make them important to an article on cosplay. (The article for Actor doesn't have links to actors' personal/fan sites!) Also, see Wikipedia:External links for guidelines: "Wikipedia is not a web directory". --Eyeresist 02:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed most of the links. If you know a good directory of cosplay groups and sites, please link to that instead. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Kusma (討論) 23:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the external links section, as it was a magnet for links that shouldn't be here by Wikipedia:External links. If somebody can create and maintain a clean external links section, please go ahead. Kusma (討論) 00:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I found a good directory and have added it. Fully agree that "Wikipedia is not a web directory." Lainey 19:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the external links are good right now, but each time I come back, someone reordered them and kicked out key sites of this community. Can we please have a discussion here which are good external links and which are not? Anime Adoru 00:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The page needs more pics

Anychance we can get more pics on this page? It seems sorely lacking in pictures to help bloster the article. --293.xx.xxx.xx 17:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, added two pics to the article. --moof 02:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of a Gallery maybe? Like a country-by-country retrospect of different ways each country does cosplay? --293.xx.xxx.xx 04:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, they're not really that different. --moof 20:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I mean there is a line in the article itself that openly derides American cosplay as being "inaccurate" (Which one can construe if they link that statement with the Deathnote cosplay in the article.) at times. Plus i've seen some Russina and German cosplay that looks much better than some US cosplayers.--293.xx.xxx.xx 22:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Added a link to some Zelda Cosplay pics (cute girls)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.61.115.34 (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Kinky stuff

So, I added a little section on what Japanese people will really think you're into if you loudly proclaim your love for cosplay. Disbelievers are invited to stick コスプレ (性風俗用語) in their pipe and smoke it. Jpatokal 07:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Remove 'Jerry Polence' picture

Will one of the administrators kindly assist in removing the Jerry Polence Philippine picture in the article? I believe it shouldn't be there for the same reason the Francesca Dani pictures has been taken out, but user Mikeabundo persists in putting it back in (and based on what I read in this talkpage, this user has had issues with this article before). Until a general consensus regarding pictures has been agreed upon, let's put non-Japanese cosplay photos on the shelf for the moment, shall we?

The fact that the picture is also linked to asian-sirens.com, which I believe is an adult-oriented site, is not a very good basis for cosplay photos in general, either. 58.69.91.53 06:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I searched for "jerry polence" on the web, and found perfectly innocent photos and blogs with no adult content. If the photo happens to be from an adult site, then the adult site probably is in copyright violation, as are, possibly, the photos in this article. As such, assuming no potential copyright violations exist, I see no reason to remove any of the photos (n.b., how many users actually look for/at Wikipedia picture links?). - Skaizun (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Lock/Ban request

Admins. Please ban Mikeabundo. The picture of Polence redirects to an adult site, it is also inappropriate to use that pic with this article. 210.23.182.42 15:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• And yet, Cosplay and the Sex Industry is fine by you. Riiight. Take your double-standard personal vendetta elsewhere, anonymous troll. Mike Abundo 2:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The discussion page is not a place for calling fellow users 'anonymous troll' and other similar names. I suggest that a refresher course on Wikipedia:Civility will do you a world of good. Cosplay and the Sex Industry was initially added to the article because the trade has been known to make use of Japanese costume fetishes to attract potential customers. That section may or may not be removed in the future pending article clean-up, but it is for the moment, fact. Perhaps some sources to cite how Japanese sex industries have made use of cosplay should be added for reference purposes? And unless you can cite similar sources regarding cosplay as a Philippine sex trade as well (I'm assuming this is what you're after, given that the photo did come from an adult site?), AND until an agreement can be reached regarding general cosplay photos for this article, that people refrain from adding pictures until further notice. Mirshariff 05:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, less have less (or ideally no) personal attacks, and more [[WP:|assumption of good faith]] all around. Wikipedia is not censored for minors, the question would be whether the photography is appropriate for the article, and whether it's linked in an appropriate way. I note that it's not a GFDL image, so the general preference would be to include it only if there's no free alternatives available. Alai 06:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Based on the number of available cosplay photos online, I think members can find a substantially good image to use without needing to resort to an adult site source, to avoid misinterpetation of the subject for the most part. Alternatives are wide and varied, but the article itself may wind up resembling a photomontage cum gallery if people begin adding any kind of cosplay photo they happen to fancy. Perhaps a reasonable limit of pictures for the article, or at least some prerequisites regarding what kind of cosplay photos can be added? Japanese cosplay photos only, or otherwise? Mirshariff 07:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The photo is not from an adult site. Mike Abundo 7:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am getting the impression that what I write here is falling on deaf ears - or on blind eyes, as the case may be. If the photo does not belong to an adult site, then why is it linked to one? Similar links do not generally hold cosplayers in a positive light. I myself do not cosplay, but I am interested in the subject and have friends who do, so the thought of any of them being linked to a similar site is worrying. But I will refrain from commenting further, since the site has nothing to do with wikipedia. However, know that we should resolve this issue first BEFORE re-adding the photos in the article, as this seems to be the cause of the debate in the first place. Please do not post further links here to 'big up' your own - a term I quote from the earlier issue above - either. I will be reverting the page back, and I trust that this does not revert again until enough people have participated here to reach a compromise. Mirshariff 13:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we do need something to illustrate International Cosplay. Mike Abundo 15:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree to Mirshariff's suggestion to place only Japanese Cosplay photos since among all countries, Japan is the country with the most appropriate credentials. Having one single pic or a set of pics to represent international cosplay may lead to lots of issues and debates whether the cosplayer is an appropriate representation of that country (at least Philippine-wise). To avoid such issues, its best not to have any pic posted at all, unless there is a majority agreement from the country's cosplay community (example the Philippine Cosplay Community) on having a specific cosplayer or set of cosplayers to represent them. So unless Mike Abundo has the complete backing of the Philippine Cosplay Community, or at least its majority, his entries and pics regarding cosplaying in the Philippines will always be subject to debate and controversy (as shown with his latest entry of a cosplay picture linking to an adult site). I'll let his past history with Wiki and the Philippine cosplay community speak for itself. eva_guy01 10:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Your approach may not be reflecting a worldwide view--GunnarRene 12:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The asian siren site that the image's description in the Cosplay article was linked to contained pornographic advertisements, the main content of the linked site was not pornographic. I don't think that relevant that is though. The link to the source site of the image belongs on the Image's own page between the summary section and the license information section anyway, not in the Cosplay article page. The section the image was placed in was the international cosplay section which would be an appropriate place for the a Philippine cosplay picture, but if the image, as the it's page suggests, is not actually available under a free license when free alternatives are available, then it should not be used. Jecowa 19:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It IS available under a free license. It says so on the pino cosplay site. (*) If you are worried that users accidentally gets adult ads, I have now changed the image description. Issue resolved. I say keep the image as there is no rule against having several free (as in liber) images in an article. --GunnarRene 12:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Provided, of course that it was shown on pino cosplay with the permission of the coyright owner. If you suspect that it was not correctly licensed, tag it as a possible copyright violation instead. --GunnarRene 12:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the model is actually the founder of the site with a creative commons license. We should encourage free content; unless somebody comes up with a better reason to remove, the picture stays.--GunnarRene 12:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In the Philippine cosplay community, the girl in question is not particularly well-liked, and Mike Abundo is a known troll among Filipino cosplay groups, hence the rabid attempts of people to remove the afforementioned picture (the girl is heavily linked to Abundo). Many Filipino cosplayers feel that having a picture of her in wikipedia is not the best representative of Filipino cosplay, much less international cosplay. The argument that "why can she have her picture placed there instead of so-and-so" may also be another reason, as well as a "why is there a picture of a filipino cosplayer on the site, shouldn't it be a *insert nationality here* cosplayer instead", which was why some of the editors were recommending removing the picture altogether. If the picture is only going to provoke hostilities, then I believe it would be better to have it taken down until some consensus be reached. Personally, I feel that another picture that doesn't spark as much controversy be used instead, if people feel that a photo for the international cosplay section is vital. 125.212.69.152 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please keep this forum drama out of my Intarwebs. If you have problems with deceptive domain names, then take it up with the domain name registrars. All that matters here is that the image is free as in liber and adds value to the article. By all means, if you can make a better and free image, feel free to upload it to the commons and use it here. Lock/ban request thoroughly denied.--GunnarRene 11:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This may be a bit late, but did they have permission from the owner of the photo? I know the photographer had it removed from the pino cosplay shop before, just forgot the name of the photographer. Huzafan 14:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents of former Meido article

"Meido" was suggested to be merged to this article as part of it's AfD. Here are the contents of that article so the appropriate parts can be included here:

[[:Image:Emma full page.JPG|thumb|200px|right|Emma of the manga Emma is a more traditional, but atypical maid.]]Meido (メイド Japanese phonetic of maid) is also a jargon term amongst some otaku to refer to a type of stock female character in manga and anime. The characterization can have a cute or ecchi connotation depending on the writer. Most address their employers as goshujinsama(ご主人様) or ojousama（お嬢様） (especially the former. The latter is generally used for the employers' daughter). The character differs from the traditional image of a typical housekeeper in being young, highly attractive, and usually wearing a maid outfit vaguely similar to a classic English or French design . In shōnen and seinen the outfit is almost universally fetishized: low-cut to show off the legs and chest, excessively colorful and/or frilly, and usually with white apron of variable length. The types of characters who wear the costumes are often viewed dimly by fans as being an extreme take on the fetish combo of an 'ideal' housewife and an obedient servant, often with sexual connotations. In more wholesome terms, a fairly common device are meido harboring romantic feelings for their master or their wards (especially if they are younger). Meido are often written in a comedic light, having employers with variably subtle embarrassing personality quirks which they put up with, having completely different personalities when "off the clock", or reprimanding their masters like children. Many bishojo shows which contain scenes of characters in large households or doing spring cleaning inevitably produce art with the characters in these sorts of outfits. Maid cafe Wikipe-tan in a maid outfit Main article: Cosplay restaurant Since around 2000, cafes called "maid cafe" have opened in Akihabara, Tokyo. In maid cafes, typical manga-style maids serve tea and cakes. When a guest comes to the cafe, maids say "Welcome home, Master" even if it is the guest's first time there, because the maids play the role of maids belonging to the guest's mansion. Similarly, they say "Have a nice day, Master" when the guest leaves. Maid cafes have become popular, and spread to other cities in Japan, and also in South Korea and Taiwan. Maid fashion The maid cafe boom has become such a major trend in Japan that the costume is now part of the Tokyo streetstyle fashion.Tokyo Maid goes streetstyle Examples Mahoro Andō (of Mahoromatic) one of the most famous meido characters in anime fandom. Despite being heavily fanserviced by Gainax, she has an ironic hatred of perverted imagery Emma (of Victorian Romance Emma) attractive meido style character from a manga and anime aimed at older women, which may explain her much less fetishtic and mundane design. He Is My Master a gag manga and anime poking fun at various otaku fetishes, predominantly maids, with moderate lolicon material. Hanaukyo Maid Tai lies at the extreme end of the spectrum, full embracing the fetish in a comedic manner, and features scores of maids who work for the household (although most do not do any conventional housework). Ebichu the Hamster in the anime of the same name fufills the same role as a maid, complete with sychopantic devotion and a completely lack of tact concerning her owner's privacy. Roberta (of Black Lagoon) another warrior-maid character, similar to Mahoro. Despite appearing to possess physically unmatched power, she devotes herself completely to the service and admonishments of a young boy. In the meido fanservice tradition, whenever she begins fighting, the garters under her frilly maid outfit become apparent. May (of Hand Maid May) 4-inch robot girl designed to help out around the house. She was accidentally ordered by Satome Kazuya, a student at the prestigious Osza no Mizu Industries University, when Satome's rival tries to sabotage his computer with a computer virus. Being a mere 4-inch robot girl, May ends up in a lot of comical scenarios with her master. See also Moe (slang) Cosplay restaurant Nurse stereotypes - A phenomenon in fictional nurses similar to meido.

20:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Cosplay vs. Costuming

I've been a costumer for over 30 years and have never referred to myself or my fellow costumers as "cosplayers". As far as I'm aware Cosplay is specifically about Japanese anime/manga only. I certainly don't think the cite of Forrest J. Ackerman should be in there especially as the word didn't even exist at the time it refers to. I'm pretty sure that the World SF Convention distinguishes between Cosplay and Costuming ~ Brother William 07:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's actually a very fuzzy boundary between the two. In Japan Cosplay is simply the word for play-acting as something in a costume. It's similar to how the Japanese refer to anime and manga as general animation and general comic books respectively. I believe you make the issue to be too black and white. While the Japanese see cosplay to refer to any play-acting in costume, the western world's definition *is* more geared to the costumes being of Japanese representation. It is debatable from what perspective we should take it, the original culture's perspective, the world perspective, or western perspective, in general the differences between the two come down simply to semantics. I know that I personally see people dressing in characters of Western Media and other medias at my local anime convention, and they say what they're doing is cosplaying, the only difference is subject matter, in fact if you think about it the culture between the two are very similar. Costuming describes that a costume has a general subject matter, in fact the cosplay article might even be able to be merged with that particular article to describe costumed play acting culture in general. ~ --Raven Ixfalia (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the "dressing in characters of Western Media" might point to the distinction between Cosplay and Costuming. Recreating the costume of a specific character is Cosplay. Recreating a costume of a particular historical period or the creation of an original costume is Costuming. At least that seems to me to be the distinction in the word use. ~ Brother William (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

As an American who is both a costumer and a cosplayer, I would agree - I do historical and theatrical costuming, where the costuming is original but based on historical research and/or theatrical demands. SCA members, reenactment groups for the American Civil and Revolutionary Wars, and similar groups would have costumers. I also cosplay, where the idea is to recreate a specific character as closely as possible, including matching body type if possible. It's generally though not exclusively a convention phenomenon. Costumers in particular tend to be insulted if you conflate them with cosplayers; the reverse is not true, but a cosplayer would likely correct someone who called them a costumer. Essentially, they are two different cultures with different purposes. I would make an edit to this effect, except that there aren't any real sources I know of that describe this; it's an unspoken sort of cultural divide.

I'm going to agree - I think most SCAdians would be offended if you referred to what they do as "cosplay," and a lot of people that attend science fiction conventions in costume (i.e., a generic costume such as a Star Trek uniform, as opposed to a specific re-creation and/or re-enactment of a specific character) would NOT consider themselves engaging in cosplay. I think the differentiation is warranted. 138.78.142.25 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If "Recreating the costume of a specific character is Cosplay" then I'd have to question the idea that cosplay originated in Japan in 1978. The 1st Star Trek convention was '72 and people did dress up as specific characters. Also, going back even further, what about Medieval European farces where people would dress up as fictional characters (like Robin Hood). Henry VIII did that. Pmw2cc (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

POV and OR

As well written as this article is, barely any of the content fits WP standards... Fortunately, this is a perfect candidate for transfer to the anime wikia. Blueaster 01:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

sigh.... dumping some junk here Blueaster 20:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Many cosplayers jokingly refer to Halloween as "National Cosplay Day".

Judging is divided by two categories, craftsmanship and presentation. Craftsmanship is how well the costume is made, effort, originality and scope of the costume comes into play. Presentation accounts of how well the costume is presented. Regardless of how the costume is made, presentation is more about how the costume is used. ie. a costume consisting of t-shirt and jeans can easily defeat a 2,000-dollar Victorian style dress, simply by being in a comedy routine. Winners of both contests often receive prizes such as gift cards, trophies, and anime DVDs.

Sources

I can't believe what this page says, because there are no sources. People actually have questions about where this word comes from, and this kind of long unsourced material on a popular cultural phenomenom is exactly what wikipedia does so much of, but which it can do much better XinJeisan 07:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Changing Meaning of "Cosplay"

Whatever the origin of the word "cosplay" might be, I think this word has a strong or exclusively sexual connotation in Japan today. From my personal experience, the costumed people in Yoyogi park don't react well to being called "cosplay"ers. And proclaiming oneself interested in "cosplay" would only invite strange looks and awkward silences. Which is to say, when speaking Japanese people automatically assume you're talking about costume fetishism. Maybe the word was more benign in the 90s, and foreign anime fans have been slow picking up the change in meaning? Or maybe the way fanboys use "cosplay" has never squared with the Japanese usage. I'm not sure. At any rate, I'd say this article needs a big overhaul clearly differentiating between the English/historical usage and the current Japanese usage (done by someone more expert than myself). That is, unless you're trying to make wikipedia readers embarass themselves by running around Japan proclaiming their love of costume kink. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.176.10.218 (talk)

I think you spend too much time with the wrong crowd. ;) First, saying cosplay has a strong sexual connotation is like saying that "swimsuits" has one too. I mean if someone says "I love woman/man dressed in swimsuits.", then there is a strong sexual connotation, but it doesn't mean swimsuits by itself has a strong connotation. It's the way words are used that causes it rather than other way around. Second, Japanese people, in general, prefer general compliments rather than being pointed out what they are doing. You caused discomfort because you went to them and called them "cosplayers" instead of complementing for how well their costumes are made and where you can buy their costumes, or better yet, not speaking to them at all and only taking casual glances. Those cosplayers aren't there to be interviewed and speaking to them without having existing friendship is like going to the Disneyland and asking its guides if they like their job. When speaking to a Japanese, start a conversation with a general topic and don't start a conversation with a specific topic.--Revth 06:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

See Also

Removed Gothic Lolita as a linking page as I feel this is misleading and will only encourage people to incorrectly refer to lolita as cosplay.

Angelicpretty (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't misleading. The "See also" section in articles isn't intended for linking articles about synonymous subjects. It's for linking articles about related subjects. If you read the article, you'll find that Gothic Lolita happens to be related to cosplay (and the article itself says so) as something that originated in Japan and is often seen at anime and manga conventions. I am restoring the link. =Axlq (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Cosplaying by Notable Persons and other needless promotion...

Alright, here's my opinion on this:

The "Cosplaying by Notable Persons" section should *ONLY* include people who are notable outside of cosplay. As opposed to people who are subjectively notable just BECAUSE of cosplay. Otherwise the above heading just makes no sense.

In other words, the former President of Taiwan and some of the voice actors would certainly fit the bill here. Most passed notability guidelines to warrant their own Wiki articles. Adella, G-Chan, FranDan, PL, et all, would not. Partially this is because their notability a subject of debate. More importantly though, I could see the potential for abuse here by people trying to "highlight" their favorite cosplayers. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. The series of ping-pong edits being done to this article involving FranDan and certain cosplayers of Filipino ethnicity is shameful. Cosplay already has its fair share of drama, and it doesn't need to be dumped on Wikipedia. Take that crap to 4chan, CosplayFucks, or Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Secondly, I don't see the point in singling out Anime Boston, Anime North, and Otakon to the exclusion other (in some cases, LARGER) cons as an example of cosplay receiving more attention in North America. No convention exists in a vacuum. I understand they were merely cited as examples, but it's done to the exclusion of MANY other large cons like Anime Expo and A-Kon. I would suggest it merely reference "larger conventions" as an acceptable NPOV alternative.

YMMV.

Kensuke Aida (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I really second that: Francesca Dani's falling star doesn't need to be fueled just to boost her immense and sick ego... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.84.117.189 (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

External Link Spam

I notice that Anime Adoru's main contribution to this article seems to be to repeatedly add Cos or Not back to the article despite MANY other editors removing it as LinkSpam. I'm going to call foul and suspect involvement in the site. Enough independent editors have removed this link for me to think it's not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.2.35 (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Anime Adoru does seem to keep adding this back.--81.108.116.105 (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked for a discussion above, see Related Links Discussion, but we can discuss this here as well. It is simple: I think there are three main community sites, cosplay.com, cosspace.com, and cosornot.com. I added cosornot.com because I like and I think it belongs in the related links section, along with cosspace.com, which is also missing. I simply undid the removal of cosornot.com because it was a good link and so I asked for the discussion repeatedly. So lets hope we can have this here. Anime Adoru (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So, again, I think the three mail related links are cosplay.com, cosspace.com, and cosornot.com. Opinions? How to go about this? Anime Adoru (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think cosplay.com is the only major community site, I don't think cosornot or cosspace are anywhere near as big or as important. Ultimately this is an encyclopedia and community links are not essential to the article. Discussion or not I think you should leave it to other people to add in links to these sites because your only contribution to this article and wikipedia in general is to add in external links which is not good form. To avoid any accusations of bias I think you should leave other editors to add these links in if they're appropriate. 62.49.2.35 (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to be the personal opinion. I'm a user of all three sites and while there are differences in size, I consider them all major. I don't think it is fair to exclude me specifically from this contribution just because I got stuck/annoyed about it. Why is my opinion less valuable than others? I'd rather see objective criteria if you want to remove my contributions. Anime Adoru (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) This has nothing to do with personal opinion, it has to do with policy. See Wikipedia:External links. Community / social networking / forum / blog sites do not belong in Wikipedia articles. Exceptions exist when the article is about the forum itself or if the article is a biography of a person who runs a blog. If you continue to add community sites, they will continue to be deleted. =Axlq

If this is so, you should remove cosplay.com, which is a commercial community site. I think it is a pity not to allow community sites. Anime Adoru (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll note that your contributions to Wikipedia have predominantly consisted of adding external links, which leads me and others to suspect that you have a conflict of interest. If that is the case, it's up to the community to decide if the links belong. I don't see your links as enhancing the information in the articles, sorry. =Axlq (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This was my first and admittedly only contribution. I'm generally good with computers, but my friend who was trying to teach me Wikipedia said I'd be in for a lot of pain if I add external links. Seems like he was right. Still, I read about "assume good faith" so I think it is pretty mean to suggest I have a conflict of interest and to discount my opinion based on this. I don't, I just like these sites and suspect that most folks who come here do so too.Anime Adoru (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Cosplay.com is much more than a discussion forum. However, I agree, its value is marginal to the article, and I wouldn't oppose deleting it. The only things I see that make it valuable to this article are that it provides comprehensive worldwide schedules and news about conventions in multiple languages. It's a bit too much of a community forum / photo blog for my taste, though. In any case, Wikipedia is not an indiscrimminate collection of links, so there is no need to add links to yet more of these sites.

I'll take your word that you have no conflict of interest. I've observed editors in the past with conflicts of interest, and their contributions to Wikipedia focus on adding external links to articles, not in actually improving articles. I apologize if I was mistaken about recognizing a similar pattern in your edits. =Axlq (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed the Renaissance Festival picture

I removed a picture of "participants at the Bristol Renaissance Festival for two reasons. First, the picture was actually depicting two of the professional actors employed as street characters at the festival, which places them outside of the realm of cosplay in general. Secondly, many if not most Festival patrons who dress up participate in the overall fantasy of the festival being set in the Renaissance -- in effect playing a role and often participating in in-character entertaining of guests of the festival. Typically they are not depicting a known fictional character, and much if not most of the time it is less about the costume and more about the acting or roleplaying. As the article does not touch on Renaissance Festivals or other such activities (the SCA, LARPing, Civil or Revolutionary War recreations or the like) the picture was out of place in the article. --Eric Burns (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Why is it so wrong for others to link to their cosplays? Uzumaki Naruto (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That would depend on the notability of that website. ~ Brother William (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Okay, thanks. ^^ かぜかおる (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed some references in the articles because I feel it is not related to the content but just pictures.

such as:

Should we remove Cosplaylocator from external link?

I think this link is a spam (Vinnyv (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)).

Seems to be extended with global contents

The Cosplay article seems to be extended with some more global contents, since right now the article reports mainly cosplay information in North America and Japan but less-detailed on that of other regions.

Would everyone have any idea, please feel free to extend it! Thanks~

SoHome (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

On Filipino Cosplay

"...and debates have raged on whether or not judges' perspectives are influenced by the organizers of a cosplay event"

I don't think this belongs here, it's completely irrelevant. I'm not sure if everyone else would agree though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.84.138 (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

History of Cosplay

This article's wording of the origins of cosplay seems funny to me: "While cosplay originated in Japan in 1978" since it conflicts with Forrest_J_Ackerman ("...in 1939, where he wore the first "futuristicostume" (designed and created by Myrtle R. Douglas) and sparked fan costuming or cosplay."

I don't feel I know enough about either topic to change this article, but even the source for this page says "It is said that the first cos-play ever performed at a fan event in Japan was that of a young woman portraying Tezuka Osamu's character Umi no Toriton (Triton of the Sea) back in 1978."

It seems to me that perhaps it would be better to change the sentence on this page to "While cosplay in Japan originated in 1978..." Megaversal (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The information on Forrest J Ackerman's page is currently uncited - could you please provide a citation? Then we can see where we can go in terms of including Forrest J Ackerman and his contribution to cosplay here. --Malkinann (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I dug up some citations of the event in 1939 including an actual photo of him wearing the costume, but no specific mention that he was necessarily the first to do so. I assume this at least shows that there were fan-created costumes prior to 1978. Megaversal (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers - could you please put the citation into the article? I've had a go at rewording the mention of the 1978 costume. --Malkinann (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to delete a mass series of images on Commons

See Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_costumes_tagged_as_copyvios_by_AnimeFan. If successful, this can set a precedent that will result in deletion of all cosplay images from Wikimedia projects.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Spelling Error

I have corrected the spelling of the word "Hentei" to "hentai" in the first paragraph --ZellDenver (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to mention such corrections, here; just list it in the "Edit Summary" box shown on every edit page (e.g., "spelling" (you don't have to mention what or where) and, if that's all you did, click the "This is a minor edit" box). Editor or Moderator: perhaps this "section" can be removed as nebulous? - Skaizun (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

About international cosplay magazines' websites

I added websites from AniCoz and CosplayZone to add reliable sources about these magazines. I also wanted to add The Cosplay World website th that section, but Wikipedia don't let me add the link because it's blocked by security. --B-kun (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can someone tell me how "cosplay" is normally pronounced? Is the S pronounced as /s/ or /z/? Widsith (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Excessive subjective, personal or emotional statements?

There are numerous statements throughout this "article" that are based solely on subjective, personal, and/or emotional points-of-view:

- "Cosplay participants ("cosplayers") form a subculture centered around wearing their costumes and reenacting scenes or inventing likely behavior inspired by their chosen sources": "subculture" and "their" are subjective terms

- "This follows a common Japanese method of abbreviation: combining the first two moras of each word to form an independent compound. Costume becomes kosu ... , and play becomes pure ....": every language has such "methods" of word play

- "maid costumes are particularly popular": proof?

- "Possibly the single largest and most famous event attended by cosplayers is the semiannual doujinshi market...": "Possibly" is subjective

- "often in unbearably hot or cold conditions": subjective

It is almost impossible not to find such statements littered throughout the article, which, I'm assuming, was done by a teen (no insult intended; I'm just indicating that, given the subject matter and subjective usage, it is the most likely person to author such). Given that, the article needs a major, more mature, rewrite to fit Wikipedia's encyclopedic format. I am not up to the task on such a scale. - Skaizun (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Everyone please check the contents carefully before translation.

I have noticed that some of the Chinese composers directly translated the contents from the "Cosplay" article in Chinese Wikipedia to the English one, with non-approved contents and grammar.

Since there are lots of lack and argument in the Chinese one. Especially the part describing Hong Kong, has been being involved in edit wars, including some immoral-cosplayer-centred contents and political promotions mixed in the contents. Such the contents may misguide the citizens by interfering the citizens to correctly recognize about cosplay in such as technical aspect and cultural aspect, thus helping them to consolidate their hegemony. If directly translating such the non-filtered contents to the English one, an unreclaimable cultural disaster may happen then.

I am seriously here to tell everyone about that, and thank you for everyone's attention.

SoHome Jacaranda Lilau (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Most terrible topic - Need Clean up !

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was inconclusive. -- AngoraFish 木 08:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

---

This is the worst and the most terrible topic I never seen.

I found that the defination and the covered area are Language-Oriented / Area-Oriented

For example

• (JA) Japanese
  • Short,well defined
  • Covered mainly in Japan area only
• (ZH-HK) Traditional Chinese
  • Long defination with "Text Editing War"
  • Area covered by regional country (Europe , Asia)
  • Mainly in Asian Zone
  • Defined something off tracked (e.g. Hong Kong)
  • Allow to edit , but always being rollbacked by some user (Similar as "No editing").
• (EN-US) English - US
  • Another defination ,which it combined with original English version and inherited from ZH-HK version.
  • Area covered by dividing the country into Western Zone and Eastern Zone
  • Defined something off tracked (e.g. Hong Kong)

So I cannot make any format change or unified the content among them. Besides, if all defination are abstracted from English Wikipedia, it seems that the contect quality will be decreased and make more and more mistake.

I look forward to have better quality to this topic , so please discuss how the content quality can be increased. --Hopport (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"This is the worst and the most terrible topic I never seen" - I can assure you there are much, much worse. The content of this article in other languages are not directly "linked" so to speak, they have different editors mostly, so why you are here complaining about the Cosplay article in all languages specifically here is a mystery to me. Go take your comments to there respective languages please!--大輔 泉 (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"why you are here complaining about the Cosplay article in all languages specifically here is a mystery to me." You mean, the same Article Topic in Wikipedia with different language will be made a difference in the future (no unified futhurmore)? --Hopport (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles on other language Wikipedias are edited by different editors and may not have the same content as what you see here. If you have a concern about a specific article on another language Wikipedia, you should post your concern on that page's talk page. The English Wikipedia does not have any control over the content of articles in other languages. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not to sure on that, as I cannot read the article in its other languages. Also, I must give you a warning abut neutrality when dealing with a topic that I know is a sensitive subject in HK. (Also, SoHome says “hi”, haha)--大輔 泉 (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Presentation Section

There is little to no content for the section labeled "Presentation". Additionally, the only sentence: "Cosplay may be presented in a number of ways and places." seems pretty redundant. What exactly should go here? JoeMeas (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe the "Presentation" section was supposed to be followed by the "Photography", "Conventions", "Competitions", and "Miscellaneous Events" sections as subsections, but the page was not sectioned correctly. Someone should get on fixing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZatouEQ (talk • contribs) 03:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

German cosplay and Japanese anime cosplay

“Father and Son” have two classics, the Russian novelist Ivan Turgenev a novel masterpiece, published in 1862. Father and son, the novel represents the growing gap between Russia’s two generations. A German humorist E.O. Plauen writing comic books, works in one vivid and humorous stories in the cartoonists come from real experience in life, Father and Son actually cullaun and a true portrayal of his son Christian.by sanseed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.126.75.51 (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Conventions

I would like to see some mention of conventions that one frequently sees cosplay at - especially large anime conventions and comic conventions in major cities. 74.61.4.54 (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitions, and relationship to Steampunk?

Some new content was added to steampunk today, describing it broadly as cosplay. Now whilst there certainly is steampunk cosplay of specific fictional characters, Captain Nemo being a favourite, most steampunks are simply dressing in a genre, not playing a named role. If they do have a "scene name" or a sustained costume theme, this is almost always a character of their own invention, not the re-creation of previous characters that is so distinctively popular within cosplay.

So does cosplay have a sourceable definition that can be pointed to, and does this require the costume to be re-creation of a specific pre-existing character?

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Japanese

Are we absolutely sure we need to write cosplay in Japanese at the top? It originated in America, and I understand the idea that cosplay is done mostly for anime and manga, among others, but we don't write other article titles in Japanese next to them. Just sayin'.

--24.210.250.208 (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The term Cosplay was coined by someone from Japan, Nobuyuki Takahashi as explained in the terminology section. The practice of Cosplay seems to of originated from America, but was not at first of the Anime/Manga style. --Nutthida (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So as not to create a section I'll be posting here. Here's an academic paper on the topic [1], one of the papers of Mecademia volume 1. AngelFire3423 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Cosplay in Chinese culture section had 0 references and was unwikified

I was unable to verify anything (WP:V), so I removed it. --Niemti (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Some spammer is pushing "sexy-cosplay.net"

Remember to revert on sight. --Niemti (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

COMMENT COSPLAY

The article is comprehensive and well documented according to topics very interesting, having the anime imagination into reality by toward peculiar costumes that permite to feel and play the character that appears in an animated serie is so nice cosplay besides being a Western culture is very creative, the conventions that make that are great, there are shows in live costumes and symbols of this culture so curious. by LIZETH PULIDO FUM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.85.15.211 (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Cosplayers

In Wikipedia’s website, there is an entry about everything related to the youth subculture of Cosplayers. It describes the meaning of cosplay, practice and events, and people who would involve themselves in this activity. Wikipedia’s definition of cosplay is a type of performance art in which participants don costumes and accessories to represent a specific character; cosplayers often interact to create a subculture centered on role playing. To my own knowledge, Wikipedia has summed up this category. In reviewing the content about cosplayers from Wikipedia, I would agree that Wikipedia is a useful source of information because it has offered clear description about this subcutlutre; linked to other websites that give either general or more descriptive meaning to the entry of cosplayers; and that Wikipedia has added worldwide components included in the entry. Wikipedia has given a very thorough description about the entirety of how cosplay works. Cosplayers go about designing costumes and act about their specific characters from favorite sources such as manga and anime, films, comic books, and video games. Initially these costumes are presented in a convention or other event in order for people to interact with fellow cosplayers, and sometime s they compete in these conventions in which their overall presentation of their chosen characters is judged then later awarded for best performance. Within in these conventions are photographers who would have cosplayers pose and model for them during a photo shoot or during a cosplayers personal collection of a photo shoot. Cosplayers generally manage their own websites, uploading modeling pictures or taking on videos of how they would dress up or act as their characters. From “What would Godzilla Say”, in the Washington Post, Hank Stuever helped given description of the functionality of cosplayers. From Stuever’s own experience, he describes the cosplayer conventions as one for a sight to see. Wikipedia has made cosplayers all the more well-known by adding this link to their site in reference to how great these activities presented by cosplayers can be. And because hank Stuever’s experience was set in Japan, this link also gives an international interest over the use of the world-wide-web. CosplayGen, the most popular and internationally known magazine representing of cosplayers, has developed a website to distribute their magazine (www.cosplaygen.com). This link on Wikipedia enables people to view the famous magazine where it includes: pictures, interviews, videos, and convention events. One of the primary functions for this magazine CosplayGen, is to help promote cosplayers and their art in performance and fashion design. With the various links on Wikipedia’s entry on Cosplayers, people can not only get a better idea of what it is, but where it comes from. Articles like the Washington Post help contribute to the idea of sharing this information as a general summary of the subject of cosplayers. My own review of the entry has persuaded me to think of Wikipedia as a pretty useful source of quick information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devi killer (talk • contribs) 19:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Positive Review on Cosplayers, based on Wikipedia's entry. By Mayra Mendoza In Wikipedia’s website, there is an entry about everything related to the youth subculture of Cosplayers. It describes the meaning of cosplay, practice and events, and people who would involve themselves in this activity. Wikipedia’s definition of cosplay is a type of performance art in which participants don costumes and accessories to represent a specific character; cosplayers often interact to create a subculture centered on role playing. To my own knowledge, Wikipedia has summed up this category. In reviewing the content about cosplayers from Wikipedia, I would agree that Wikipedia is a useful source of information because it has offered clear description about this subcutlutre; linked to other websites that give either general or more descriptive meaning to the entry of cosplayers; and that Wikipedia has added worldwide components included in the entry. Wikipedia has given a very thorough description about the entirety of how cosplay works. Cosplayers go about designing costumes and act about their specific characters from favorite sources such as manga and anime, films, comic books, and video games. Initially these costumes are presented in a convention or other event in order for people to interact with fellow cosplayers, and sometime s they compete in these conventions in which their overall presentation of their chosen characters is judged then later awarded for best performance. Within in these conventions are photographers who would have cosplayers pose and model for them during a photo shoot or during a cosplayers personal collection of a photo shoot. Cosplayers generally manage their own websites, uploading modeling pictures or taking on videos of how they would dress up or act as their characters. From “What would Godzilla Say”, in the Washington Post, Hank Stuever helped given description of the functionality of cosplayers. From Stuever’s own experience, he describes the cosplayer conventions as one for a sight to see. Wikipedia has made cosplayers all the more well-known by adding this link to their site in reference to how great these activities presented by cosplayers can be. And because hank Stuever’s experience was set in Japan, this link also gives an international interest over the use of the world-wide-web. CosplayGen, the most popular and internationally known magazine representing of cosplayers, has developed a website to distribute their magazine (www.cosplaygen.com). This link on Wikipedia enables people to view the famous magazine where it includes: pictures, interviews, videos, and convention events. One of the primary functions for this magazine CosplayGen, is to help promote cosplayers and their art in performance and fashion design. With the various links on Wikipedia’s entry on Cosplayers, people can not only get a better idea of what it is, but where it comes from. Articles like the Washington Post help contribute to the idea of sharing this information as a general summary of the subject of cosplayers. My own review of the entry has persuaded me to think of Wikipedia as a pretty useful source of quick information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devi killer (talk • contribs) 19:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

photos

The first photo: File:Cosplayers (7277897740).jpg was not very good, it had two people in the foreground, not facing the camera.

I replaced it with File:Joker_cosplay.jpg which is a better representation of cosplay. Igottheconch (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually it has at least 6 people. --Niemti (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Computer Science Assignment

My computer science class at the university I attend has an assignment on editing several articles on Wikipedia, and I've decided to edit this article on cosplay. My main objective is to copy edit this article "for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling" as indicated by the Wikipedia banner at the top of the article. I'd really appreciate it if no one else contributed by copy editing so that I could do my assignment. But if I've made a mistake or two in editing, then I wouldn't mind if you helped me out and let me know. Thank you so much!

Oh, as an afterthought: I'd love to help with any other areas needed to edit this article, like adding additional citations for verification. So if I find anything, I'll hopefully get to share it with anyone else editing this page so that I can run it by them and do it right.

BrenSeesAll (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There's not any way to prevent others from editing the article while you are working on your assignment. However, your instructor can always see exactly what you did by viewing the history of the article (there's a tab at the top labelled "View history") and looking for your username in the history. If s/he needs help on doing this, we can always assist. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay, thank you for letting me know! BrenSeesAll (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone Notice Deadpool's Grey in the Picture?

He's supposed to be red. I guess it doesn't matter much, but... well... it's kind of weird... Anyways, just saying. If this doesn't belong here, just tell me and I'll delete it. Rikin4378 (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Images

I recently took a few pictures of cosplay at the Calgary Expo convention. I haven't uploaded all of them but some are here. I tried to add one and an edit war started with no discussion and just opinions of another editor. Cosplay does exist in other countries besides Japan and images should be included from those other countries. The photography rules in the section didn't apply to Calgary as anyone could pose and take pictures anywhere. That whole section is incorrect and based on a blog as a source. My images themselves prove it to be limited as well as the photography rules laid out on the Expo website: http://www.calgaryexpo.com/faqs/ See: Tips for a successful con weekend... 9. Personal Cameras.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

And good for you, your images are now includes in Commons (among many hundreds of others cosplay photos). --Niemti (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

They're all Asian. Point: Bring in some variety. KyuuA4 11:30 am, 4 April 2007, Wednesday (6 years, 1 month, 14 days ago) (UTC−6)

Most cosplayers Live in asia. It's more or less still a japanese trend, although it does apear more frequently in the west nowadays, it's reserved for conventions over here, anyway, I think the aisian-ness of the pictures is fine, however I have a very good picture of a cosplay, if you're going to make that big a deal out of it. ~Sana (talk) 1:17 pm, 3 June 2009, Wednesday (3 years, 11 months, 14 days ago) (UTC−6)

They haven't all been Asian in a long time. By far the most of them are women, though. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. =) JIP | Talk 10:22 am, 17 February 2010, Wednesday (3 years, 2 months, 29 days ago) (UTC−7)

• Canoe - please stop this edit-warring to re-add your own image. Consensus amongst other editors (all those who have expressed an opinion) is that this image is irrelevant. Also don't revert other editors, simply by describing them as "meatpuppets". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, keep it out - cosplay is mainly Asian - this is Historical reenactment (a Japanese teenager-free zone) but unlikely to make the cut there either. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I give up, bye........--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The word cosplay is certainly of Japanese (asian) origin, but dressing up at cons is much older than the popularity of that term, and certainly today is much more widespread. Just because a term from one place has been adopted everywhere does not mean that place created or defines the concept. there is no restriction that it must be of a fictitious person, or of an asian subject. People cosplaying as US comic/movie chars, or historical figures are quite common. While certainly not all cosplay is reenactment, and not all reenactment is cosplay, there is significant overlap. To attempt to define away something you don't like is original research, and not a neutral pov. This is however a separate issue from if the image is a good fit from the article, and it seems consensus is that it is not. On a subject as cultural and subjective as this one is, there is no appeal to authority really available, so local consensus should win. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for typical Wikipedia rhetoric. Could you repeat in in English now?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

They are wrong to try and redefine cosplay to be mutually exclusive with reenactment or to be exclusively asian/sex/whatever oriented. The topic is broad. However, this is a moot point, because they are right in that the community decides what is best for the article via consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Tira and Alice in Wonderland cosplay pics

Tira cosplay

File:Cosplay-Alice-in-Wonderland.JPG

Alice in Wonderland cosplay

What do you think about these two photos? Would they add value to the cosplay article if we added them? Cogiati (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'd be surprised if these were the best we could find. The first one might be OK if this is a vaguely representative version of the "Tira" character (with whom I'm unfamiliar). The second is more about the portraits than the costumes though and the costumes aren't up to scratch for really demonstrating cosplay. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmm yeap I think you're right about the second pic, thank you for pointing out the portrait/cosplay difference, I hadn't thought of that in that way. I think I have better photos of these and other cosplays, too, I'll see if there's something I can afford to put under free licenses. Do you think full-costume/full-body cosplay pics are more useful for Wikipedia cosplay articles? I'll be photoshooting new cosplays next week so I guess I can use your advice if you know what cosplay pics are needed for Wikipedia articles and which characters are missing or need better pics. I've seen many Tira cosplays but the best pics of Tira cosplays I'm aware of are by photographers who don't make material available under free licenses, unfortunately, however I'm not so expert like some cosplayers in judging whether a costume is accurate or not, anyway this particular picture was actually requested by a magazine some months ago before I made it Creative Commons, but I'm not sure if that means the costume is accurate as the magazine wasn't specialized in cosplays. By the way, how do the Wikipedia community notices new uploaded pictures? I guess uploading it and letting the other editors know in the appropriate article's talk page is the norm here? or do we put the pic in the article and let others decide whether to remove it or keep it, or is this considered spam? And also, I prefer to make photos available under free licenses if I know they are actually useful, what would you suggest is the best way to know before I upload what photos would really be useful in an article? is there any page describing image needs? Cogiati (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

[S]He's spamming it everywhere[2] (quite hilariously even to articles like Model (profession)[3]). This one with Tira was spammed: here, to the character's article (btw, it's this Tira), to the series article, to the list of characters, and to the game article (that's 5 articles). Disregard and move on. --Niemti (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The only place this could be considered is Talk:Tira_(Soulcalibur)#Tira_cosplay (replied there). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sexual element

I don't mean to be funny, but looking at the photos on this page and in the talk page, I can't help but think that there may be a sexual dimension to cosplay. Would someone who knows about the subject want to include something about this? Totorotroll (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Cosplay sex? Yes, people are doing this. There are also all sorts of erotic/pornographic photoshoots and videos. --Niemti (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems like this article is deliberately avoiding a discussion of the sexual aspects of cosplay. It may make some people uncomfortable, but it is an obvious omission in an otherwise thorough article.

Cosplayers List

The list desperately needs citations, because I think the section could run afoul of Wikipedia:BLP by not citing sources. I would like to see this list properly cited and disseminated to differentiate between cosplayers that are well known and ones that are only "famous" due to a minor event. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Cosplayers who are not well known have no Wikipedia articles; there are manhy thousands of them. It's not a biography, it's a cultural article. --Niemti (talk) 07:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It's still a BLP issue seeing we're dealing with real life people. So citations are needed otherwise Wikipedia might run afoul of someone suing them for defamation. It needs to be taken seriously, unlike some other people on Wikipedia. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Niemti on this one. If a cosplayer is notable, they have a wiki page, and within that page there are all the links that are needed for verification. If they aren't notable they don't make the list. This is why the list is called "Cosplayers" not "Notable Cosplayers" - by definition of being included they are notable. I also disagree with your comment about taking the article seriously - taking out Jessica Nigri was not a clever thing to do, especially when there's an image of her in cosplay attire right next to the list. I wouldn't necessarily call the remover an idiot, but it certainly wasn't wise, and should have been reverted a long time ago.

Also, having read through BLP, it doesn't actually apply in this case: See here. We are talking about a list that links to articles - and that's excluded. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it applies, given we're dealing with cosplayers that are famous for being cosplayers. Also, the article is suffering from Wikipedia:Verifiability as well. Just because they have an article on Wikipedia doesn't mean this article can skirt the rules. Someone needs to take the time to make individual citations for each cosplayer and put them in this article. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Answered on my talk page, but to summarize - what you think is different to what is actually outlined in BLP Lists, where it clearly says "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers" "These principles apply equally to lists" (my emphasis). Also the article does not skirt any rules. Only article linked cosplayers are listed, and each article has sources to support their notability. You are in fact aware of this, having removed several non-notable players yourself over the years, although some of them were a little dubious and over-enthusiastic in deletion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Parades

The article lists only theatrical performance as an exception where dressing up like this would not be considered cosplay. Someone has recently cited this on Commons to say that being in a parade in Commons is therefore cosplay. I would say that a parade is an exception for exactly the same reason as theater. Does anyone have anything decent & citable, maybe from sociological literature, about this definition? I would find it very awkward to say that someone in a costume in a parade is a "cosplayer" any more than an actor is. - Jmabel | Talk 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There are public cosplay parades, often known as cosplay walks (something like zombie walks). --Niemti (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, but this was not about a cosplay parade. This was about people dressed as Batman characters, posing for pictures after the Fremont Solstice Parade. E.g. File:Fremont Solstice Parade 2008 - Batman et. al. 03A.jpg. The illustrations on page Fremont Solstice Parade make it clear that this is not a "cosplay parade."- Jmabel | Talk 05:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Nah, not all dress up is cosplay. --Niemti (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Breakaway list for notable cosplayers at List of notable cosplayers

Hello, I'm visiting from the BLP work group where some issues were raised about this page. I'm also a member of the Lists work group so I decided to create a Stand Alone List for the List of notable cosplayers. I put a lot of work into it and think it looks great. What do editors here think? Should we break away the list to be a stand alone article and delete the list here? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I like that. My only concern is the same as the one raised on the page - it's a bit of a small list, but that doesn't detract from it being a good looking list. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I usually don't break away until a list has 20 items. But given that this is about costumes, I think adding pictures creates a necessary visual experience for the editor. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no need for this. Unless you're going to include all kinds of "notable cosplayers" - like the World Cosplay Summit winners, the EuroCosplay winners, etc. --Niemti (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

With a Stand Alone list, there is no reason not to add a section for Winners of Notable Cosplay events who themselves do not necessary meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). There would need to be some sourced clarity on which events constitute notable Cosplay competitions, so we aren't listing the winners of the NO Where Nebraska Costume Party.--Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the list and created a section for "Winners of notable cosplay summits". I don't know much about that source materiel so another editor will have to create the content for that section. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Are professional models in costumes cosplaying?

Please see my question at WikiProject_Video_games. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Not if they're doing it as part of a modeling contract - hence my removal of Alison Carroll a few days ago. That isn't to say that a pro model cannot cosplay, but the circumstances are different for a pro model. Booth Babes also do not meet the cosplay criteria. The defining characteristic of Cosplay is in the first sentence of the lede - "hobby". If you're getting paid for your appearance, it's not Cosplay. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If you look into the discussion at Video Games, you'll note there's no consensus with regards to what you are saying. We really need to find sources that define cosplay in such a way that they address this issue or discuss it further. Personally I think there's certainly scope to distinguish between three groups: those who cosplay as a hobby, those who cosplay as a (part-time?) job (self-employed), and those who cosplay as models (promotional). I think most would agree that the first two groups are cosplayers; the question is - what about group number three. And for that we need sources. Wiktionary:cosplay does not suggest anything to justify exclusions of models, and our lead, which is also not very clear (hobby is only an optional part, preceding by "or"), is, let's face it, pure OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Cosplay is dressing up. Not being dressed up. --Niemti (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me put what I said earlier a bit more bluntly: neither of us is an authority, so cite your sources for a definition of cosplay. Models who earn money from cosplaying are recognized as cosplayers ex. here: Ben Bolling; Matthew J. Smith (12 February 2014). It Happens at Comic-Con: Ethnographic Essays on a Pop Culture Phenomenon. McFarland. pp. 36–. ISBN 978-0-7864-7694-7. or [4]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

International photos

A portrait from Comicdom 2012, a yearly cosplay convention in Athens, Greece

Most pictures are from US cosplay conventions so I think it would be good to add some cosplay images from other countries as well, to illustrate the international reach of cosplay. Do you agree? I can propose some images. Cogiati (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Most pictures are not "from US cosplay conventions so" really go away. --Niemti (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

We should have a balanced global coverage. But the Greece picture here is pretty ugly (expression-wise). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll try to find and propose better pictures, there are many. Cogiati (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

May I recommend some of my recent pictures from Korea: see Comic World's gallery. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Photos of cosplayers being interviewed by journalists

Television journalists interviewing a cosplayer

Journalists interviewing a cosplayer

Television jouirnalist interviewing a cosplayer

I think the article could benefit from photos of cosplayers being interviewed by journalists, to highlight the media interest in covering cosplay conventions, and the impact of cosplay in mainstream society, as well as to show that cosplay is a well-known hobby. Do you agree including a photo showing cosplayers being interviewed? We could put one of the images I propose here. Can you propose other more suitable images? Cogiati (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea; I'd recommend a picture where we can identify a notable station doing the interview, and link it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1983 World Science Fiction Convention

The article states "The term was coined by Nobuyuki Takahashi of the Japanese studio Studio Hard while attending the 1983 World Science Fiction Convention (Worldcon) in Los Angeles." There is a link to YeinJee's Asian Blog which says "Akibanana has some scanned image of the My Anime magazine released in June 1983, which is said to be where the word first appeared, written in Japanese – コスプレ (kosupure)." The 1983 World Science Fiction Convention was in Baltimore from September 1-5, 1983 not Los Angeles and after the publication of the My Anime magazine. The 1984 WorldCon was held in Los Angeles. In the link costuming/cosplay was already established in science fiction conventions by the mid 1970s, you will also notice picture taking areas with white backdrops present before what this article says occurred in Japan. The link is X-rated. http://io9.com/5895773/a-treasure-trove-of-cosplay-from-the-swinging-1970s-nsfw Here is a link to pictures of costumers at a 1980 Sci-Fi convention in Los Angeles which also has a picture taking area http://www.retronaut.com/2012/01/sci-fi-convention-los-angeles-1980/ Here is another link to a picture slide video of 1981 NuCon Science Fiction Convention in Sydney, Australia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGUAppWzszk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6031:4F:6960:F422:7C6A:7B3F (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's retroactively referred to as cosplay. Even in 1996 people in America couldn't spell cosplay ("cost-play") when being told about it by the Japanese: [5] --Niemti (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Niemti: Regarding [6], without a ref that this is retroactive use, saying so would be ORish. From the article, we can only pick up the fact that what is today known as cosplay was done back then, through how it was called is not discussed. To be on the safe side, we could say this: "What has later become known as cosplay was done as early as 1970s."

It would be nice to acquire original images under a free license, they have historical value. IO9 doesn't bother to attribute the source, one could ask in the comments, perhaps someone would read it and share their pics.

Anyway, our claim that NT was inspired by the 1983 WorldCon in LA is not supported by cited source [7]; further according to List_of_Worldcons the 1983 WorldCon was not in LA but Baltiore. So we need a better source if we want to keep the WorldCon attribution.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It's an article written in 2012. It used to be known simply as masquerade back then. (Sometimes it is STILL known as masquerade.) https://www.google.com/search?q=masquerade+science+fiction+convention --Niemti (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep; this seems like a valid reference: Bruno, Michael. 2002. "Cosplay: The Illegitimate Child of SF Masquerades." Glitz and Glitter Newsletter, Millenium Costume Guild, October. http://millenniumcg.tripod.com/glitzglitter/1002articles.html. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The article should be turned around to show the history of costuming/ masquerades in the West and how cosplay is a later variation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6031:4F:6960:F422:7C6A:7B3F (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing original research

This article is long overdue for some OR being cut. Here is some content I have cut from mainspace due to being unreferenced for years. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Groups of cosplayers may choose to hold small gatherings (popularly known as meet-ups) at any number of venues, including cafés, parks, nightclubs and amusement parks. They may join to have an excuse to cosplay, to compare work, share tips or any other personal reason. Sometimes cosplayers will go out individually in their costumes in character for fun. Along the way, they may encounter other people that are interested in doing cosplay. In doing so, they meet more people in their community and form groups where they can meet new people in the world of cosplay and discuss their work and experiences.

A Cosplay Artist which is a North American term works with a company to create a unique character for their video game, RPG game or comic. They create the look and persona and work with other designers to decide how the character fits in a particular setting. Once the character has been created they them make a costume and portray the character at conventions, in you Tube videos, commercials or promotional posters. Examples are Shantel Knight aka Zombie Bit Me who created the character Cyrign for Blackbyrne Publishing and Crystal Graziano who created a science fiction charter for the video game Firefall.

archive.org is not workable

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

More Recent Images

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

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

If they do it again, I will be forced to ask for a lock on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.153.236 (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

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

If anyone were interested in learning more about cosplay on a deeper level, I would suggest checking out "Framing Cosplay" by Alexis Hieu Truong. He addresses gender roles in greater context and how cosplay re-articulates identity.

http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue32/truong.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElfinOwl (talk • contribs) 03:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@ElfinOwl: Feel free to add [8] to the Further Reading section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

sexual aspects of cosplay

It seems like this article is deliberately avoiding a discussion of the sexual aspects of cosplay. It may make some people uncomfortable, but it is an obvious omission in an otherwise thorough article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.234.87 (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That's because cosplay is not a sexually orientated topic, despite connotations that it may be. In fact, the definition of cosplay is the impersonation of characters - or as the lede currently says "a performance art in which participants called cosplayers wear costumes and fashion accessories to represent a specific character", and has nothing to do with sexuality. Sexual Cosplay is essentially Sexual roleplay and/or Uniform fetishism. The introduction of sexuality into Cosplay by definition excludes it from the article. However, that doesn't mean you don't raise a good point, and I've added the two above links to the "See Also" section, as it's a fair enough assumption. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me for being crass, but trying to add your sexuality into it is kind of awkward. I don't really care what your kink is, YKINMKBYKIOK. If you want to do that, we're gonna have to add fursuit sex to Mascot cause I've met people who want to have sex with someone in a Tony the Tiger costume. That's not what that article is about and not what this article is about either.65.29.77.61 (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 December 2015

Looks like there's an extra line break before the "Gender roles" section. That's all. Thanks. 69.17.145.2 (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Potential vandalism

This article has been linked from a forum dedicated to mocking "social justice warriors" [9]. Following the creation of this link on the website reddit at approximately 17:00 14 December 2015 (UTC), four anonymous edits removed content concerned with social justice (edits [10] [11], [12], [13] ). The sections removed primarily referenced blog post. These blog post are relatively academic (on the whole), usually containing the name of the individual publishing the blog post, referencing conferences where the work was presented, and containing references to other literature. However, I'm not very clear on WP:policies and a sections that rely so heavily on ephemeral online sources may be undesirable. Never the less, I'm loath to allow WP:TE to stand, so have reverted these edits for now. LarryBoy79 (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

69.17.145.2 (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC) I agree, but to avoid WP:TE, shouldn't we revert to the most concise, relevant, and non-editorialized version of the article? Just because a source is legitimate, doesn't mean it's relevant for a high level overview of a topic.

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

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

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

The controversial material in question was added recently by a student editor for some kind of project. Such a huge edit like that obviously needs WP:CONSENSUS. A similar problem occurred with another student editor on the Black Lives Matter article a while back. Pinging @Scaleshombre, Jumplike23, and Stabila711: who dealt with that problem on the BLM article. And more unilateral changes occurred with two more student editors on the Orientalism article. Pinging @Blackhat999 and Ryk72: who reverted the problems on that page. An additional unilateral edit by another student editor recently occurred on the Unit 731 page, which I am hesitant to revert. Vivexdino (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the deeper revert, I didn't read quite far enough back. -- ferret (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I certainly have no problem leaving the article in the state it was before the additions. LarryBoy79 (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, I was essentially trying to revert to a similar version of the article that Ferret reverted to, but preserve some of the minor changes that Flounder19, Torchiest, and Bilby made. I do feel I got into an edit war with 69.17.145.2 who was trying to preserve the section blanking that occurred after the post on reddit. However, in my mind 69.17.145.2 was attempting to preserve vandalism. Would it have been better form to just do a clean revert to the an earlier version of the article, rather than re-insert the blanked sections? LarryBoy79 (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I pinged the teacher involved and it didn't happen again in our case. The student used the talk page, the second time. --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed the student's User:Dmfielding edits at [14], and I thought they are a fine addition. It seems that they are a member of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Oregon/Feminist Science Fictions (Fall 2015) run by User:Castabile. It would be great if the students and the instructor (pinged now) would comment on this issue. Also, I'd be interested in learning more about why non-vandals may dispute the students additions. There is the issue of WP:UNDUE, and blogs are not the best sources, through blogs by academics are usually acceptable. In [15] I can't ID the author, so it's a fail, [16] is a bit better through the author is still semi-anonymous; I don't have time to do a more detailed review (really, it should be the course instructor's job - I have my own students whose work I have to analyze and grade), but overall I don't think a wholesale revert was needed. Some pruning, perhaps, but some of the content seems valid (if, perhaps, it should be condensed to one section instead of several). I'd also expect there should be some proper peer reviewed sources, which the student should look into, rather then rely on blogs - use Google Scholar/Books, not just Google...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

I believe there is some consensus for including the least controversial and most factual changes. I'm pretty happy with this version, as I had made efforts to prune the highly opinionated additions while keeping the essential details. I'd also be fine with including the racebending part that was edit warred over a bit, as long as it doesn't link incorrectly to the unrelated article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Torchiest:I'm with you on your linked edit. Seconded. Dr. Doctor (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Torchiest's linked version, it contains no problems as far as I can see. Vivexdino (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This part seems completely irrelevant to the article: "Limits such as level of attractiveness, body size, and disability often restrict and confine how accurate the cosplay is perceived. Authenticity is measured by a cosplayer's individual ability to translate on-screen manifestation to the cosplay itself. Some have argued that cosplay can never be a true representation of the character. Instead, it can only be read through the body, and that true embodiment of a character is judged based on nearness to the original character form.[23]" In particular, what is the relevance of what "some have argued"? People argue many things. It is obvious that the accuracy of the cosplay depends on the physical characteristics of the cosplayer, and that nobody can be exactly the same as a virtual character. It strikes me as whole unnecessary meandering fluff that does not benefit the article.96.52.136.248 (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that whole paragraph really, I could take it or leave it. I hadn't done anything to it yet in my earlier edits. But that quoted part definitely runs afoul of WP:WEASEL. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Since it seems like we have a decent consensus to keep the additions with some pruning, I'm planning to revert this back to the trimmed version I linked above when the editing restriction expires tomorrow, unless anyone has any other objections. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup, that seems good to me. Vivexdino (talk) 08:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Torchiest and others: thank you for constructive comments here, I agree with the consensus here. As a fellow educator, I do apologize for the instructor and student, who as it is too common are clearly not monitoring this talk page, and are not active enough (nor vested in the article's fate enough) to participate in the discussion here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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

I just reverted the last edit by User:88.88.46.28 regarding the 'founder of cosplay'. While this may well be true (there has been online coverage to this effect) [17] I don't think that it's appropriate in the first section ahead of general information about cosplay. Perhaps the content if rewritten would be suitable somewhere else in the article. Go82102 (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140517122218/http://www.entertainmentscene360.com/index.php/cosplay-models-real-life-japanime-characters-38228/ to http://www.entertainmentscene360.com/index.php/cosplay-models-real-life-japanime-characters-38228/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150721033045/http://www.cosplayculture.com/ to http://www.cosplayculture.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213115620/http://americasgreatestotaku.com/page/about-americas-greatest-otaku to http://americasgreatestotaku.com/page/about-americas-greatest-otaku
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304121748/http://firefox.org/news/articles/1349/1/Canadian-showing-of-quotAnimaniaquot-documentary-about-anime-phenomenon/Page1.html to http://firefox.org/news/articles/1349/1/Canadian-showing-of-quotAnimaniaquot-documentary-about-anime-phenomenon/Page1.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921054747/http://1994.worldcon.org/depts/masquerade/info.html to http://1994.worldcon.org/depts/masquerade/info.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616183121/http://layers.dengeki.com/ to http://layers.dengeki.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003140622/http://www.cosmodeonline.com/blog/about/ to http://www.cosmodeonline.com/blog/about/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

history?

This article could really use a section on the antecedents of cosplay. For example, in 18th/19th century masked balls it was common for participants to dress up as *specific characters* like Queen Marie Antoinette, not only as generic figures like pirates and fairies. How this developed into dressing up as figures from mass media and how cosplay allows for expanded embodiment of the character needs to be articulated, as otherwise it seems as if cosplay magically appeared from nowhere. Historical context please!169.234.100.88 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Getting relevant sources is the hard part. However, I've started a history section by re-working some of the existing text and adding some stuff about early Worldcon costuming. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• It goes back much further than that. Late medieval (Tudors in the UK) pageantry made much use of costumed players like this, usually with classical themes. I wouldn't be surprised if the Romans were the first. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  True, but I don't have the sources (or, at the moment, the time to find them) to describe that. I've added a short summary of two other articles for context and marked the section for expansion. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

  NB: The history is also missing later information from the invention of the word to the present day. It apparently became very popular in Japan in the late 20th century but I can't find much detail about that period, nor its re-introduction to the US and the rest of the world. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr Skygack

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

#<ref name="io9 19 September 2013">{{cite news|last=Miller|first=Ron|title=Was Mr. Skygack the First Alien Character in Comics?|url=http://io9.com/was-mr-skygack-the-first-alien-character-in-comics-453576089|accessdate=20 September 2013|newspaper=[[io9]]|date=19 September 2013}}</ref> #<ref name="AshcraftPlunkett">{{cite book|title=Cosplay World|pages=6–11|first=Brian|last=Ashcraft|first2=Luke|last2=Plunkett|publisher=Prestel Publishing|year=2014|isbn=9783791349251}}</ref>

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

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150103191356/http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1C to http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1C

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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