Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Should the Wikipedia namespace page on Wikipe-tan mention past deletion nominations

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.

Umm......To keep it short and nice:-- N Clear consensus against the proposal.Best,∯WBG^converse 07:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Should verbiage based on the following text be added to WP:Wikipe-tan?

In 2011, the page WP:Think of Wikipe-tan! was deleted after a consensus that concerns that the page could "drive female editors away" represented a "real and theoretical potential to harm the project".

In 2006, 2008, and 2011, Wikepe-ton was nominated for deletion. The 2011 nomination noted the "misogynistic or even lolicon implications" of Wikepe-ton, but closer felt the page should be kept because Wikipedia namespace had "numerous examples of pages based around specific sub-groups and minority positions."

References

— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Notifications

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga by — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias by — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) by — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Gender gap task force by — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support as proposer. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The top of this talk page already lists the multiple deletion discussions. I see no need to add mention of it on the page, itself. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

That is a reasonable argument, but I don’t see how it applies to the proposed additions of content discussing to WP:MFD/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!. The page already has content about how other content related to Wikipe-tan has been deleted. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Sure it's fine. It's an internal page not an article, so there's not protocol reason to not include in the main text. Doesn't mean we should, just that we can. So OK. It's a fact. If it's an important fact materially bearing on the subject and aiding the reader's global understanding of the subject, it should be included in the text. If it's not that important, squirreling it away on the talk page would be OK. It says here that it's an important fact. Herostratus (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Close. If something here is mysogynist and turning female editors away, it is this RfC, which shows how incompetent we are regarding female retention. wumbolo ^^^ 20:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and close. This information just adds WP:UNDUE weight. The OP is trying to provide a link between Wikipe-tan and driving female editors away by cherry picking deletions which is highly debatable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT only applies in the article namespace. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• What? this needs an RfC with VP:Policy advertisement?! But sure, why not - shows an example of a consensus discussion that editors can use to know what not to incorporate here. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  To clarify, I'm fine with including links to the XFD's of the related page, I don't think any sort of summary of them belongs - interested readers can go read the other XFD's. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include I disagree with Kk87, and don't quite understand what Xaosflux means. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Edit: I feel the second part is ok. "The TP has all the AFD notices let the people look at them there" doesn't cut it for me, WP:Wikipetan is basically an article on the character, and as such should sumamrise its history, not force people to go hunting for back story on the opposition. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Well lets put it this way, two other AfD closures of this page found no fault with the gender issue. We would be taking the opinion of one closer and making it a focal point. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

As for the "Think of Wiki-pe tan" article, the closer reached this conclusion: "Those promoting deletion as an option argue that the page is mysogonistic, in poor taste, detracts from the nature of the project, has no purpose and has the potential to actively drive female editors away from the project at a time when we are concerned about the number and proportion of female editors. Those promoting keep suggest that it is funny, it is not explicitly offensive, and that "lacking purpose" is not a reason to delete." This is not the same in saying "concerns that the page could "drive female editors away" represented a "real and theoretical potential to harm the project". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - That's what we have the talkpage for!, You wouldn't put "WP:AFD has been nominated twice" on the main AFD page would you ? ... Same case here, If you wanna add the AFD/MFD stuff then add it on the talkpage. –Davey2010^Talk 13:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - While I object to the reverter's behavior, I do concur that the content should not be included. If these deletion discussions contained anything noteworthy, such as a negative consensus or a significant expression of disapproval, I would enthusiastically support including them. However, they don't. The community overwhelmingly backed Wikipe-tan in all three deletion discussions, and none of them contain a noteworthy level dissent or disapproval that would warrant being mentioned. The consensus to delete Think of Wikipe-tan! was not a condemnation of the concept or character herself, but of that specific page, which was a bizarre, creepy, disgusting, abysmal "attempt at humor" (created by one person). For those who can't see, it portrayed Wikipe-tan as an abused, neglected, and mentally-ill child slave, and repurposed innocuous images Wikipe-tan with inventive captions supporting the sick, demented fantasy. I don't like the concept Wikipe-tan, but that page should not be portrayed as a notable aspect of the character in any regard. Swarm ♠ 18:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, the prior deletion discussions are already logged on this talk page, which is the standard practice. I see no need to discuss them on the content page as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: keep it simple. This talk page is the place for those. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support, adding a section/mention doesn't preclude the talkpage templates from also existing. Since it is project space most of the usual guidelines do not apply (WP:UNDUE, etc)--I feel that the opposes are mostly WP:IDONTLIKEIT-esque (nb: don't tarnish the poor mascot's image!). To be honest, the OP should've jfdi rather than start this RfC that will (likely) fail. Finally, I would also support another MfD or marking this {{historical}} as I think it's long past time we give this damn thing the Old Yeller treatment. FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY ^[u+1F602] 12:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• An MfD would fall flat and would be a waste of time, I still stick by my decision to mark this as {{dormant}} or as you said {{historical}}. As for the contested edits they were already attempted and undone twice.[1], [2] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah MfD would be a waste you're right, but archiving it with some template is acceptable to me too. Too bad people seem to really like this crud and such common sense edits can't stand. FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY ^[u+1F602] 13:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• In retrospect though WP:IDONTLIKEIT can be said about those dumping on Wikie-tan. I don't think WP:OWN would apply as this figure has been worked on collaboratively to make images for different areas on Wikipedia. Take File:Wikipe-tan mopping.svg as an example, it has its current usage in admin related things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• No, I don't like it personally. But I also think it's a childish "mascot" and is pretty embarrassing for reference work nearing its 20th birthday--I sure as hell wouldn't point to it if some third party wanted some examples of our community's culture. I also think you'd be hard pressed to get it enshrined these days if we were starting from scratch on a mascot. And I've long sympathized with the argument that it has the potential to alienate women contributors (as well as confuse those who just don't get it). But anyway, my opinion is just that, my opinion. It matters none. FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY ^[u+1F602] 14:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• You are entitled to your opinion, mine is represented in the fact that female admin willingly use the Wikipe-tan mop icon. Some women may be alienated yes, but at the same time as with everything else others will think that it is no big deal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Knowledgekid87: perhaps an appeal could be made to an artist to volunteer artwork of a male unofficial personification of Wikipedia doing mopping for alternate usage? Then people could choose either version. Perhaps a non-caucasian version should also be made? ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• I would support this 100%, sadly the original artist has long since left Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with your opinion on the page, mark it as historical. But I totally disagree with your dismissal of the opposers. This is meta-content, so there's no policy considerations beyond personal opinion that come into play. Therefore, citing concepts such as "ILIKEIT" or "IDONTLIKEIT" is meaningless, as ultimately this consensus is going to be derived from the participants' opinions. Do you have any actual reasons to include the content? Because I actually gave reasons why it shouldn't be included, that had nothing to do with my personal opinion of the page. I would love to include content that alludes to the fact that the community doesn't like Wikipe-tan, but in this case, it would be inappropriate to do so, because it would be misrepresenting the reality of the situation. There's nothing noteworthy in any of those discussions, so what's the motivation for including them beyond falsely implying that the page has historically generated some sort of controversy? Swarm ♠ 18:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose mentioning the 2011 deletion of "think of" is fine, as is mentioning the 2006/2008/2011 nominations and linking to the individual nomination discussions. But I do not agree with quoting the 2011 nomination. If people want to read the specific nominations, they could do so by clicking a link to the archived discussion. The phrasing "the 2011 nomination noted" is also biased, because "noted" sounds like it is an affirmation of fact whereas claiming the mascot has sinister implications is a statement of opinion, not fact. Singling out any aspect of the conversations avoids NPOV, as replies to nominations can be as (or even MORE) valuable than the nominating reason itself, especially with rejected nominations. As others have pointed out above, it also makes sense to simply retain the mention of past 3 nominations/1 deletion on the talk page rather than the main page. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - My reaction to seeing this RfC was "Hey! I think I can comment on that, I'm a female!". And as a female, I question if the incidents brought up in both examples were based on actual discontent from female editors, or just men pearl-clutching about being seen as misogynist. I really, really don't think that a cute anime girl mascot is going to be the make-it-or-break-it factor that dissuades women from editing. In my book, including this would just be giving undue weight to fears about possibly, maybe, just perhaps being misogynist. Nanophosis (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• Start an article about Wikipe-tan and note that editors tried to present "pedophilic sexualization" of the characters forcing the involvement of Jimbo Wales. Since the topic is covered in reliable sources it can have an article in the main namespace. Bright☀ 17:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• @BrightR: oh yes, judgement like Let me be clear: Jimmy Wales is doing the right thing here. is part of the top-notch journalism at the News section of the Guardian. wumbolo ^^^ 21:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah I agree that more in depth sources would need to be found here. A more interesting discussion would be if Wikipe-tan was scapegoated or not as a reason why female editors don't edit Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't have to be unbiased. At any rate even if you don't think there are enough quality sources for an independent article, these three sources can easily be incorporated into Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Sexual_content. Bright☀ 07:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose If we follow the exact Wikipedia policy, this would be clear synthesis. The administrator was simply summarizing the discussions and the points of those who wanted the article to be kept. Really, if you wanted to include such a thing, the appropriate line would be The clear majority in the discussion favors keeping the page. rather than cherry picking what the administrator said in the fragment of that sentence. The person who nominated the article for deletion was later blocked for abusing Sockpuppets, and as such should not be considered an authoritative voice on the matter. If we don't follow exact Wikipedia policy because this is a Wiki space article vs a namespace article, it would still be inappropriate and misleading because the context is chopped off, and Ivory continually called and insinuated that other editors supported lolicon if they supported the decision to keep Wikipe-tan. They would need a better argument than that to be the main source for said quotation. Tutelary (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - The following edits bother me as I see it as a way to get rid of anything Wikie-tan while a discussion is going on about the subject: [3] <- (no source for edit summary opinion), [4] <- (Template edit which should have been discussed here), [5] <- (So this image isn't cited by any outside source but the one that was replaced at Catgirl is?). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think Special:diff/840858790 is an opinion. It is a statement of fact that there has never been a consensus to adopt Wikipe-tan as a community mascot. Let's discuss the cat girl edits at the relevant talk pages. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• I struck my comment as I feel that the image you used is a fair compromise. I still stand by my thought that you should have also addressed the template (Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan/toptemplate) here though as it is relevent. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't revert the changes to Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan/toptemplate until there is further discussion on the matter. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - "but [the] closer felt the page should be kept because" inappropriately impugns the impartiality of the closer. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Deletion-nomination records go on the talk page. That's a site-wide standard approach, and there's no reason to make an odd exception for this one case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support (include) - this is Wiki space so references to Wiki-discussions are appropriate. They provide additional information to the readers that is relevant to the topic at hand. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2018 (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.

Example for Loss (comic)

The following discussion 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.

---

Would a Wikipe-tan image for the "abstract Loss" meme described on Loss (comic) be okay, or would it be a bad idea (read the article and see what that I/II/II/L pattern implies...)? Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why not, I mean go ahead and make one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The meme implies a female having a miscarriage, which might not go down too well for a few Wikipedians, especially since Wikipetan is our de-facto mascot. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 03:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Well if you have doubts then don't do it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

You can make on if you wish, but I doubt there will be a consenus to use such an image in the article namespace. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 08:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think it would go be a good idea. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:38, 31 August 2018 (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.

Wikipe-tan is the Wikimedia virtual assistant

• 
  Cortana
• 
  Alexa
• 
  Siri's avatar is copyrighted art

Eventually Wikimedia projects will present a virtual assistant to serve a range of functions. Right now this technology has shortcomings, but it is developing rapidly to become accurate and useful quickly. I anticipate that in the future there will be chatbot services in Wikipedia that will start as experiments then bget combined into a suite of functions, and collectively when 10-100 services get combined, then instead of giving them all individual names we will humanize the collection into some personality. Apple has Siri, Amazon has Alexa, Microsoft has Cortana, and similarly, the Wikimedia community has Wikipe-tan. It seems like Wikipe-tan will be that personality unless some other contender becomes more developed or better loved.

I was looking at the documentation here and thinking about the cultural products which we need to present the spirit and values of Wikipedia in the form of a virtual assistant. Some of those things are here and some of those things are still to be developed.

If any Wikipe-tan fans ever build out this character's personality and influence, then I am in support! Wikipe-tan is a great ambassador of the Wikimedia community and I like the idea of her being our representative virtual assistant, administrator, librarian, curator, clerk, and project manager. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan in Christian newsletter in May 2012

This was not in the archives here so I thought I would share. I wanted to document a community publication about Wikipe-tan.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity has, at various times, published a newsletter called Ichthus' through their outreach department.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/Newsletter

It seems that there is no central archive of previous issues, so the only way I can link to an issue is by linking to its delivery on any user's userpage. I searched and found this user whom I chose by chance and because they have been dormant for 7 years. Read the issue on their talk page.

• Ichthus: May 2012

Enjoy. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Chatbot listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Chatbot. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Virtual assistant listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Virtual assistant. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

humor?

To editor Eshaan11: Discuss rather than edit war. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't the name of Wikipe-tan be Wikipi-tan instead?

Shouldn't the name of Wikipe-tan be Wikipi-tan, or anything else that sounds closer to "Wikipe" in Japanese. All Nite (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@All Nite: I'm no Japanese expert, but the Japanese Wikipedia is actually called ウィキペディア, with a pe instead of a pi (ピ). bibliomaniac15 17:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bibliomaniac15: But that's exactly what I'm saying. I find it weird how they just respelled the word Wikipedia with the Japanese alphabet without concern about how it's actually pronounced; that is not how you properly rewrite English words in Japanese. If you read ウィキペディア in Japanese, it doesn't sound as accurate as it could've been. I believe ウィキーピーディーアー （uikiipiidiiaa) or just ウィキピディア would be more appropriate. All Nite (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

On ja.wiki, their article on Japanese Wikipedia actually mentions that the very first main page there (July 2, 2002) actually did spell it ウィキピデ, but it was later changed (January 20, 2003). The article seems to attribute the initial spelling to a mistake by a nonnative speaker. In fact, it seems that it is customary to transcribe "pedia" in katakana as ペディア (see ja:百科事典). If I had to guess, it's probably because transcription into Japanese takes into account the pronunciation of the source language, and in Latin/Greek it certainly wouldn't be pronounced with an "ee" sound like we might do in English. bibliomaniac15 18:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bibliomaniac15: Sorry for late reply but I didn't even know that "Wikipedia" is actually pronounced differently than what I thought. I always thought that it's pronounced something like wi-key-pee-di-ya because that's how others pronounced it AFAIK. Also I'm not an native Japanese speaker; I'm just a learner learning the language so I only know some basic stuff about it. Again, sorry for the late reply because I don't use Wikipedia too often. (;_; All Nite (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

what is the character's copyright status?

the article does not state the copyright status of the character itself (not the artwork done by others for her) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.80.174.34 (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Click on any image and then click on the button in the lower right corner that says "more details". Each image has its own copyright rationale. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, characters do not exist independent of the art depicting them, so Wikipe-tan's design origin would be associated with the first artwork to showcase this design, just as Steamboat Willie is an early showcase of Mickey Mouse's design. Arlo James Barnes 04:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

No mention of the 3rd puzzle piece

It says that Wikipe-tan wears 2 puzzle pieces, however all images of her show her with 3. I think the 3rd is the greek symbol Omega. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan by others

I think we need to draw a line here on what is considered to be Wikipe-tan by Kasuga (with derivatives), and what is just pure fan art. Just for the record: I am perfectly fine with linking to the commons which has an expanded gallery of images. My concerns is that the fanart will become an issue down the road. Case in point File:Wikipe tan by SigurdHosenfeld.png which has a deviantart link in it which would fall under the scope of WP:PROMOTION (file). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: I do not follow.

1. Why distinguish art by the character creator from others?
2. What is the problem with linking to an artist's gallery or page? We do with with photos from flickr and similar all the time.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Information

I suggest including her species as "catgirl" since she's on that page. Just an idea. Booger-mike (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Feel free, why not? You can edit Wikidata also at d:Q7404282. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

A really silly page

A really silly page, with no WP:Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Good thing it doesn't need reliable sources, as it's not an article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki-tan 3d model?

Normally I wouldn't post "commentary" in a talk page, but I'm going to assume that with the resurgence of VTubers there's bound to be a 3D model for Wikipe-tan (or if it hasn't been made someone can go ahead and make one). And if it gets created, believe me it's both getting a proper rig and getting added to the page, rig included. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

There certainly are more than one example of libre VTuber creator software, but as far as I know nobody has used one to create Wikipe-tan. In fact, the only 3d model of Wikipe-tan that I am aware of is that used to make file:3DWikipe-tan.jpg, which has been lost to time. Perhaps someone has made a Koikatsu model or something and simply hasn't published it widely yet, however. Arlo James Barnes 23:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

What images should we feature and how?

@Knowledgekid87 and Geni: Talk it through. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to be selective yet. The numbers of new 3rd party images aren't really a problem. 31 in 16 years (or about 2 a year) means it will take a long time to break 500. Also its a freely licensed character. The whole point is that third parties can create versions.©Geni (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Searching Commons for Wikipe-tan results in these images, I don't see a need to display on this page any images not done by Kasuga, with the possible exception of those in use by WikiProjects. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

including them here gives them significantly greater find-ability.©Geni (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay... can you prove this or is this just an opinion? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

We should keep the page as is without the "Wikipedia by others" and "Cosplay". I just want to point out that even WITH these categories included, there are still more images on Wikimedia commons that could be argued to include here. Should we include File:Bastike-tan.jpg, File:Naked Wikipe-tan (censored).png (why do we even have this?) or File:On The Internet Nobody Knows You're A Nudist.png for example? These could be considered versions of Wikipe-tan by "others", and is something that just adds fuel to generate another drawn out WP:MfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Those are both derivatives so things you apparently support including.©Geni (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Just leave it as is, there’s way too many fanarts and cosplays and photoshops to add without cluttering the page, and some of them (as mentioned, PS yay I’m famous!) are NSFW at this point, and I think the page should be SFW per WP:GRATUITOUS (I obviously don’t have a problem with Wikipe-tan sans apparel but it’s unnecessary to illustrate the topic) Dronebogus (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes you is famous ^-^, seriously though... you get the point. We don't need to include everything just because its there already on Wikimedia commons. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

31 over 16 years is a unusual definition of way too many.©Geni (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

If you get this out of projectspace, anyone is welcome to have a personal or shared gallery fawning over Wikipe-tan all they want, I guess - But we certainly don't need fandom galleries in projectspace. Furthermore, anyone uploading/using explicitly sexual pictures of Wikipedia-as-a-cartoon-girl-mascot-thing should be sanctioned for bringing the project into disrepute (and being generally creepy). Feel free to take my opinion with a grain of salt, though, because I know that somehow there will always be consensus to keep even the most chillingly embarrassing and inappropriate versions of this thing. I'm usually good at compartmentalizing that reality, keeping it separate from the rest of my impression of the Wikipedia community, but since noticing that Commons has multiple categories dedicated to sexualized Wikipe-tans, I'm disgusted anew. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Your loathing of Wikipe-tan is well established, but I feel like it’s kind of an overreaction to think naked anime girls are going to “bring the project into disrepute”. Yes there’s criticism of pornography on commons and “overly sexual” aspects of Wikipedia culture making female contributors uncomfortable, but I feel like in practice the biggest sex-related faux pas in Wikipedia history had absolutely nothing to do with Wikipe-tan, and the only Wikipe-tan-related high-profile incident was about a lolicon version which is very different than a sexualized adult version. Dronebogus (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Which means that an additional advantage of including them here is that people are less likely go and search for them on commons with all the problems that can cause.©Geni (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I am fine with keeping historically made images (and those related) by Kasuga on the project page as it relates to the original idea. Anything beyond that goes into the "why isn't my drawing on the page..? sphere". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

the others (and the cosplay) date back as far as 2006 so at at least as historic as Kasuga. The "why isn't my drawing on the page..? sphere" is something we can deal with when it happens.©Geni (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Its already happening... there are images on commons that aren't here for whatever reasons. This isn't some kind of art gallery as there are other websites and hosts for this kind of stuff. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This is some kind of art gallery and the fact it has survived 3 AFDs addresses the other websites argument.©Geni (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Believe me I know... I was there in favor of keeping the "Wikipe-tan by others" at the time as there were not as many [6]. The images for that particular section have since doubled, which takes away from the main subject at hand. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

My take on the issue: We probably need to cut down on the "Wikipedia-tan by others" section, but leave it. The purpose of this page is (1) to document the character, and (2) "do we have art of Wikipedia-tan doing something?", so various projects can use that. For an example of something that can be left out, File:Wikipe-tan Loves Pride!.png is probably not good for inclusion here, because it's more "sexy" than "cute", and thus probably NSFW, and of a much lower quality of face and hair drawing; further, it's redundant with stuff in the existing "derivatives" section. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 21:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I’ve improved the image since the original post (new: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Wikipe-tan_Loves_Pride%21.png vs. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/9/90/20220204091411%21Wikipe-tan_Loves_Pride%21.png) Dronebogus (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion: Move anything that isn't an unaltered original by Kasuga to one of two subpages: one for translations and minor edits of the originals (crops, palette swaps, etc.), and one for wholly new derivative works (cosplays would be on this latter page, for instance). Then there's room to divide these pages into H1 sections by creator / editor. If any section contains an image for which we want to apply a content warning, a hatnote can be added to it. How does that sound? Arlo James Barnes 23:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that runs foul of WP:GALLERY. Maybe just link to the WikiSisters gallery page on Commons? Dronebogus (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point (although that section seems to talk mostly about mainspace, despite covering enwiki as a whole in scope). At least then there will be less duplication of effort. A pipedream would be for one page to be maintained at metawiki and transcluded in all the language editions with ?uselang= parameters, but I don't think that's a thing. Anyway, for the purposes of a project namespace page specifically, it seems sufficient to have the intro paragraph explaining who this blue person is with a few Kasuga illustrations for visual interest; then an editor can satisfy their curiosity if someone namedrops Wikipe-tan elsewhere and promptly get back to editing -- or continue onto Commons if they want more. Arlo James Barnes 13:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay so.... it seems we have a consensus to either not include the images at all or to include the images in a limited fashion. I don't see a consensus to keep all of the images, nor do I recommend a discussion in this section regarding separate pages as that can be done in a new section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Regarding the 'images in a limited fashion' bit, I was rereading the article and quite a bit of the text refers to individual images as being, well if not quite WP:N-style notable, then at least of note. What if we included such images inline rather than in gallery mode? This is already the case with the one that had been a 'featured' image in 2006/2007. Arlo James Barnes 14:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good. I feel like this is devolving into “how many Wikipe-tans can dance on the head of a pin” though and am just going to WP:BOLDly edit the page to include AJB’s proposal now. Dronebogus (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with this idea as implemented, since there's just not enough vertical space to include so many thumbnails inline, and it damages the chronological integrity of the gallery to move only a few images up. If what I propose below is implemented however, I think the CVU roundel can stay. — Goszei (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I reverted the changes as I also disagree with the blown up images. These detract from the page more than help readers understand Wikipe-tan. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I find myself taking a minimalist view here; I think that only Kasuga originals should be included on this page in their current gallery format, and that everything else (fan art, derivatives, cosplay, and perhaps crops) should go on the Wiki-sisters gallery page on Commons, to which we should have a big and very visible link. As someone who cherishes all the fan art that has been made and has spent some time curating the galleries on this page, I think this is the best way to document the major history and keep the works accessible to those who want to view them, while staying well within the bounds of project space for those who take a more "srs bsns" view, and avoiding the spats around inclusion criteria that have popped up.

Side note: I have to laugh a bit at all the ruckus that Wikipe-tan and her moé qualities have kicked up over the years; for me, she is a nostalgic relic from what feels like a wildly-different age of the Internet, and I want to keep this page as controversy-free as possible for those who feel the same. — Goszei (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I've come around to the points made below by Bluerasberry and Arlo about remixing, amateur contribution, and arts-and-crafts charm being important to the spirit of Wikipedia as a whole. I think we've established a strong desire here among multiple editors to keep the gallery curated, and importantly with mostly the same goals in mind, so I think keeping around 70 like Bluerasberry suggests would be fairly simple and uncontroversial. — Goszei (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

My first preference is that this page be deleted, but such an outcome is unlikely to gain consensus.

My second preference is something along the lines of what Goszei proposes: a minimalist gallery on this page with the bulk of subsequent fan art moved to a gallery on Commons. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 07:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support gallery of 70 individually curated image thumbnails In the past few days there has been fluctuation between about 100-200 thumbnail images on the page. Including everything is too much. I think going down to 70 images would be a big but appropriate cut. 70 is less than any time I see in recent history, so it is a number which can start conversations on curation while also being high enough to avoid drastic changes or hard curation decisions. While I think Kasuga images should be included because they are foundational and high quality, I do not think all those images should be here, nor do I think images should only come from that artist. The nature of wiki and fan art is to encourage remixing and amateur contributions, so we should have various representations including weird ones and ones of lower technical quality to demonstrate that anyone can contribute more. People who would like to contribute more should start by posting to Commons, where all the extra pictures can go into any other gallery. Bluerasberry (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Personally, I think this page is fun. The original drawings are well-done, the cosplay is cool, the fan art is cool, people seem to enjoy drawing Wikipedia as an anime character (if there's a gender issue, I would be happy to draw Wikipedia as a male anime character). As for horny stuff, it sucks; I agree that this is broadly outside the scope of "fun page about the mascot character", and indeed outside the scope of the project. I don't think we should have those anywhere, certainly not here. However, I have to confess I don't really understand the current dispute. As this is not a mainspace page, it's not clear to me that policies and guidelines about image galleries in articles are applicable here. Wikipedia is not printed on paper -- does it really make a difference? People do not come to this page because they're trying to do serious Wikipedia business, and get interrupted by all the pictures -- Wikipe-tan drawings are not getting spammed into AIV or ArbCom cases. This is a page specifically about the mascot character, so I don't get how drawings of the mascot character would clutter it up. Would you pay to get into an exclusive cigar lounge and then complain that everyone was smoking cigars?

At the same time, it's hard for me to get too worked up about this; as others have mentioned, there are plenty of Commons categories if you want to find fanart or cosplay or whatever. I think that a lot of the images (like Wikipe-tan in various national costumes) are useful to people making logos for WikiProjects and the like -- but still, I don't know how much ink I can spill over this before it becomes embarrassing. jp×g 08:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's more of a fun page than it is a 'serious' page, but that doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose. If it has any reason for existing besides historical inertia, it is to introduce editors to Wikipe-tan who before knew nothing or very little about the character as a mascot, or as a lightning rod for community adoration and/or disdain. Early in the page's edit history it was feasible to add any and all images of WP-tan since there weren't that many and they were basically all relevant to such an objective. However, the images available now have both diversified away from simple depiction and have also multiplied both beyond a coherent imageset and beyond technical constraints on the number of media displayable on one page. Since we literally cannot show all images, we must necessarily exercise editorial selection. To be clear, that would/does happen on the Commons gallery too, but galleries there are designed to showcase various media about a topic. Whereas here, we can establish a scope and stick to it. I agree though that it needn't be just the slickest images that make the cut, there are definitely some that have a more arts-and-craftsy charm and also show what the community use of the character is like. Arlo James Barnes 16:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

curation (cont.)

I put an editnotice in place so that whatever set of pics we decide on is clear as being representative, not exhaustive. If anyone here knows a handy template to link to the Commons gallery, that might also be handy to add in. update: removed it, I thought an editnotice was those things that pop up when you load the source or VisEdit but I guess not? Arlo James Barnes 11:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

this isn't an article but this isn't an otaku page, either

To editor Melodia: Regarding this dispute about unsourced content on this page: the material looks to me like fan service and probably afoul of WP:UNDUE. I understand this isn't an encyclopedia article but how much tolerance do you think the community will allow? Please note the prior discussion about the many images removed from here. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Melodia: I am going to have to agree with Chris on this one regarding sources. Adding WP:RS gives Wikipe-tan more notability outside of her fanbase (WP:FANCRUFT would still apply here). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

A list of popular culture appearances outside of “serious” appearances would be interesting, but I can see it devolving rather quickly into a meta version of “where’s my fanart” Dronebogus (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It was more about the reason for the revert -- saying "unsourced" and "not notable" and "citation needed", isn't really relevant. That;s why I asked you to "try again". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it is relevant per my reasoning above. Why wouldn't we want properly sourced content for Wikipe-tan? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I’ve removed the mention, it’s charming that she’s popular outside Wikipedia and I like the free publicity but that’s not automatically notable. Dronebogus (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Moe desu! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.154.209.50 (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Question

I am a big Midori Days fan, and I was shocked to see that the fan art of the title character (Midori Kasugano) was taken down due to problems with copyright. (I was even shocked to know that she was the mascot before!) Is the fanart still up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waylon111 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not think so. Machibito (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Move article

There are many disputes about the article as it looks more like an anime character article than a Wikipedia Informational article and the dispute makes sense as the article starts with "Wikipedia:" i.e. as a Wikipedia Informational or Help article, the best thing would be to translate the article as "Wikipe-tan" only like all Wikipedia articles because how do you say this is not an Informative Wikipedia article, so we better put it as a normal Wikipedia article Machibito (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• I would oppose any move until and unless this page is brought up to main space standards. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

'Wikipedia:' is the prefex for meta about Wikipedia. It's not infermational, per se. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Melodia although the article is not an encyclopedic, it is necessary to return it encyclopedic because if we do not they will eliminated and there is evidence of it, to make it encyclopedic, we can guide us with an encyclopedic article by an anime character for example the of Ash Ketchum. For my part, I will eliminate the gallery, as it returns the heavy page and reduces the seriousness to the article and will also eliminate the links of the Kasuga accounts from Pixiv and DevianArt, since the article is not Kasuga biography and can be considered promotional. Machibito (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The MfD you link specifically cites WP:FAKEARTICLE as an argument, so making the page more encyclopedic would only strengthen that point against it (the objection has largely been quashed with the addition of the top template after that discussion, in any case). There is a clear consensus to keep the page in the Project namespace, and its current state reflects this (a combination of informational documentation of her history/use and a gallery of editor-generated content). The links are debatable, but again this isn't mainspace, and one can argue they serve to credit to a peerless contributor. — Goszei (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand. Machibito (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

What images should we feature and how? (followup)

previous discussion: wikipedia talk:wikipe-tan/Archive 5#What images should we feature and how?

Summary of previous discussion:

• the page needs to exist (per deletion discussions' outcomes and BillHPike)
• as it is not currently in-scope for a mainspace article, it needs to exist in the project namespace (see previous section)
• it needs some number of images to illustrate the subject matter, between 0 and 500 (the technical limit, per Geni)
  • ~70 may be a happy medium (per Bluerasberry and Goszei)
• there exists a gallery for files about the wiki-sisters on Wikimedia Commons
• therefore, most images of the sisters can 'live' there, with a selection here and a pointer to the rest
• as Kasuga invented the wiki-sisters' designs, some or all of the files included here should be his (per Chris Troutman and Knowledgekid87)
• art pieces by others have also offered 'takes' on her character design (per Geni and Bluerasberry)
• files on this page should be confined to galleries or infoboxen so as not to dominate the prose (per Knowledgekid87)
• any files that are non-worksafe should not appear on this page (per Dronebogus and Rhododendrites)
• files that lend themselves to reuse in other contexts may deserve special consideration (per Lubaf and jp×g)
• it may be a good idea to present files in order by date of creation (per Goszei)

Thought I would revive this thread due to Knowledgekid87, Deevad's and my recent edits. Arlo James Barnes 06:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The current setup is fine; let’s not talk this issue to death. Dronebogus (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's what a talk page is good for, after all :) Speaking seriously, what I am hoping to achieve is a solid consensus that can be cited on the page itself... the takeaways from prior discussion seem to have been ambiguous as far as I can tell; I have attempted to summarise (my reading of) the archives above. — Arlo James Barnes 09:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Oops, I edit-conflicted with you adding the link to wikipedia:drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass; I don't think humorous essays are really intended to be cited...particularly since the particular objection is easily solved by muting notifications on the talk page thread, now that DiscussionTools is a thing. Also, following up on the edit by Deevad, I found it interesting that he initially viewed the apron costume as inappropriate; I think this could offer another reason to show the partial 'reinterpretations' of the design (perhaps in place of the IMO kinda unsightly 'crops' section). — Arlo James Barnes 10:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Manga

I can only speak some Japanese, but can't read kanji. Could someone right a dubbed version for me please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrman19 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so can you read kana? Kanji is hard to read.

maybe there will be a dubbed one with furigana. 2A00:23C6:BE86:B401:5882:C17B:82D6:C47D (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)