Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 July 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Archives August 2006 - May 2007

loli

The loli images are back, now on Commons. Any thoughts on how to handle this? They were deleted on our side because they were signed "Kasuga", but were obviously not done or uploaded by Kasuga. -- Ned Scott 09:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The people over at Talk:Lolicon will handle this. (or already are) _dk 09:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I say we keep them and be thankful, Lolicon has needed a good illustration for ages. If they need some sort of detailed explanation as to why they have weird source info, so be it. (We can't really blame outsiders for not understanding our image policies straight off.) --tjstrf talk 09:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As much as I hate giving Wikipe-tan this kind of image (the blatant whore kind), it a lot better than the previous lolicon image (no offense to the author of that image, but.. eh). If we can get the source and licensing info clarified then there shouldn't be any problems. -- Ned Scott 22:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the uploader is fairly clearly a throw away account for fairly obvious reasons.Geni 22:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That might be a problem, then. -- Ned Scott 22:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Under the GFDL people are free to chose to be credited under whatever name they like.Geni 00:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong is getting the previous image license clarified. There is somehow a deletion debate going on at the Commons (which started off quite strangely). Anyways, now we have a confirmed author, source and license, I am dropping any issues I have for the image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that they got rid of that picture of teenage Wikipe tan in a swimsuit, it was creepy. Anubiz 11:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To me, most of the other pics on this page are far more 'loli' than the deleted pic, nor do I see how it was creepy at all. *shrug* ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I thik it's creepy. Maby becouse I think she is traying to be sexy in it. Anubiz 13:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The katakana alphabets on the sexy image is wrong. It's クィ (Kui)instead of ウィ (Uui). L-Zwei 14:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My government does not like this. It's illegal. Not that I care, but still... - 2-16 16:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What was that for? Anubiz 16:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm in school, I don't want to get expelled and arrested for looking at Wikipedia :O - 2-16 12:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well you're in luck, you won't be. Or would they expell you for looking at penis too? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Relax you will not get in troble, unless you site it as a sourse. Anubiz ♦ 13:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

They use remote-access and dig through browser history. - 2-16 16:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

There should be a Userbox for Users who like Wikipe-tan. If there is an I just did not find it scorry. Anubiz 13:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a general "This user likes anime box" that uses her image (IIRC). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks maby we should be able it git to it from the page. Anubiz 19:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:LoliWikipetan.PNG

What the hell? Is this even legal in the United States?! - 2-16 16:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No I don't think so. Anubiz 16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Drawn depictions are legal in the US. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

acutaly it isn't that simple and untill anouther court case turns up the situation is a bit uncertian. It would probably be illegal to publish in the UK although for the time being ownership is probably legal.Geni 00:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay did not know that. Anubiz 18:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What was the image? Was it something like this? --AAA! (AAAA) 01:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The very same one. _dk 01:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's on the Wikipe-tan page, and on the Lolicon page. There's a deletion discussion here: [1]. If I understand correctly, they are saying they only delete for copyright violations so arguments about the content aren't legit??? -Jmh123 01:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

They are but the images appear to pass Commons:Commons:Project scope.Geni 02:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it is (or can be) used in other Wikipedias as well and Commons isn't the place to sort out legal issues between the different Wikipedias? Are any relevant trademarks (Wikipedia stuff) already released via the Commons as well? -Jmh123 08:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We can ask the Foundation if trademark issues are still the main concern. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing obscene in that image, of course it's legal. --tjstrf talk 08:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, someone took away the 'older' wording I used. That's at least two people who seem to nolt be able to tell that yes, the girl in that pic is clearly older than than the girl in most of the rest of the pictures. Or am I the blind one? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That Wikie tan looks 13. Anubiz 11:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I'd say 8. The artist who drew it was asked to make her obviously pre-adolescent, and the folks at Lolicon were very happy with the result. -Jmh123 16:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How about this that one is 8-13, the reall one looks 5. Anubiz 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Most 13 year olds are fully mature physically. This one shows no signs of puberty at all. The confident young woman who is pictured with the dread looking hair and the black suit is not labeled as older. Even the bikini-wearing sex service gal is not labelled as older. The intention of the Loli picture was for her to look like a young child. She does. Now her pose is older--yes--that is exactly the point--a very young girl acting precociously sexual. -Jmh123 16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Very well howerver she still looks somwat older then most Wikie tans. Anubiz 16:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the sexy Wikipe-tan seem to be older (14-16) than normal Wikipe-tan (10-12), though younger than adult Wikipe-tan (17-25). L-Zwei 18:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I say it's a difference in drawing style. Let's not argue about one single adjective. _dk 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Aloha to that. Anubiz 21:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

More on the loli

WP:AN/I#User:Herostratus threatening disruption over image on Lolicon

My own thoughts, it seems several users are misunderstanding the legal issues of displaying the image (as in, none), but another issue, the concerns about the association of Wikipe-tan's (and Wikipedia's) image to this, might be something worth discussing. Thought it might be a good idea to start the discussion here, since.. it's pretty crazy over on AN/I right now, and the Commons deletion debate was closed early. -- Ned Scott 00:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

.....*shakes head in disbelief*.....How about asking Kasuga for an ambiguous image for the article? _dk 02:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Japan article uses a different Wikipe-tan image drawn by Kasuga (Library of Babel) which probably would've have gone unnoticed, but now's not a good time to be suggesting a different Wikipe-tan for Lolicon, I don't think. At any rate, the discussion of what image to use for the Lolicon article is going on at Lolicon Talk. However, Ned Scott brings up an interesting topic of potential problems with the use of Wikipe-tan images in general.-Jmh123 03:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take the averge hip and breast sizes of girls older than the lolicon age, and see if the picture roughly meets or exceeds that average? — Deckiller 03:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Come agian? Anubiz ♦ 12:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We're not debating that it's lolicon

I've spent many a day on 4chan, 7chan, etc. I know what lolicon is, and that image is lolicon and I'm damn sure of it. The question at hand is whether we chould have such an image. This has mushroomed into a huge ordeal at WP:ANI, with an administrator going barzark. - 2-16 15:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Anubiz ♦ 17:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The admin did not go bezerk--just said something strongly worded, which someone else prematurely took to the ANI. So don't worry about that. The debate is just that--this is a contentious issue, yes. Clearly people feel strongly about this image, whether Wikipe-tan should be used in this way or not. -Jmh123 17:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

But this pick is not good for her image, next thing you konw there will be Wiki tan hentai Anubiz ♦ 01:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If it were up to me, it would be deleted from this Wikipe-tan page. -Jmh123 01:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You act as if it's some horrid thing for there to be such. It's not. The argument about "sexualizing kids" is irrelevent, as it's an image of her /older/, and it's only somewhat suggestive. The argument is almost aking to saying there should never EVER be a sexualalization of ANYONE because everyone was a kid once. Now, I do agree against putting on actual H-pics here (and they already exist, mind you), but seriously people seem to be looking at this pic as if it's some horrid crime against nature. It's not. It's just a little suggestive pic, that shouldn't be garnering even close to this much hostility. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats that way it is. "Wobbuffet" I dos not have to make scence. Anubiz ♦ 02:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Offtopic: There is wikipe-tan hentai? omgwtfbbq cannot compute *explodes* _dk 04:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There is porn of everything. No exceptions. - 2-16 17:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipetan community mascot

On 2007 8 June, Wikipe-tan was recognized by Jimbo Wales as a community mascot. [2] (Loliwikipetan was a lolicon version of wikipetan sensored in wikipedia)

Now if wikipetan is really a community mascot then why don't you add it here.If it's not a community mascot,then why loliwikipetan was deleted, we tolerate the other one with the lollipop in her mouth.--81.245.58.108 23:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We have images of Wikipe-tan all over the page, so your first question makes no sense. The LoliWikipe-tan was deleted because as a community mascot the lolicon image of her is not appropriate, and that is why she will not be added here. The second image, the one with the lollipop, is not Wikipe-tan, and therefore not an issue in relationship to Wikipe-tan. -Jmh123 23:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant add here the fact that she is the community mascot.She is the mascot of that and that wikiproject,but that's it.Now if she really isn't the community mascot then the deletion of loliwikipetan makes no sense.--81.245.58.108 23:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You would be better served taking that up with Jimmy Wales--however, it makes perfect sense to me. Although she is not the official mascot, she still represents Wikipedia and she wears Wikipedia symbols. I agree with Wales, but he's the one who made the final decision, and he da man, so it will serve no purpose to argue about it here. This has been argued about all over Wikipedia for days. I for one am sick of the whole thing. You don't make kiddie porn out of the mascot, unofficial or not. It's just not going to happen. Arguing with about this any longer will serve no purpose. Please, just let this go. -Jmh123 00:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact you have a slightly entising image "kiddy porn" shows a real problem with the general mentality of a lot of people. It's pretty silly. When I first saw the image I thought nothing of it and never dreamed people would be so up in arms about it, much less call it something it isn't even close to (it doesn't even look lolicon to me, nor could it possibly at ALL be called 'porn' any more than a lingerie catalog). But whatever, I do agree with protecting the page because it's all getting rediculous. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

They don't hang Bill Gates porn in the corporate headquarters of Microsoft. 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Bill Gates isn't moè. Nor was the image porn, but that probably doesn't matter seeing as it was actually removed due to various users opinion of lolicon in general rather than any actual justifiable reason. I mean, cmon, "kiddy porn"? Is Wikipedia really that unable to be NPOV about lolicon? You guys gonna pull a Livejournal on all us anonymous users out there that actually use this site as a reference? 71.142.244.226 13:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan as a model

I think that it might perhaps be a good idea to use Wikipe-tan as a model (as in, give her a career in modeling). She could be used to illustrate clothing articles.

Even if she is not to model nude, might she still be suitable for lingerie modeling (such as for the camiknickers article)?

I very much hope you're talking about the older version, right? - 2-16 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not a terrible idea, but some people might object to the use of an anime character instead of a real person modelling for clothing articles. In fact, many people might object in this fashion (no pun intended). It could work having her (the grown up/teenage version of her, not the child version) in articles modelling alongside human models. And yes, a male counterpart to Wikipe-tan might also be useful for this purpose.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, you need a Wikipe-kun as well for male clothing. -ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 19:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone's going to take the time to make a drawing of some dude wearing a specific article of clothing, I think it's more appropriate to just take a PD or FL shot of some dude actually wearing it. A real picture is preferable in all cases to a drawing, even though the drawing takes longer, which is unfair but that's life. I think the drawings should be relegated to illustrations where a real picture is unfeasable or wouldn't work (anime, video game, etc.) - 2-16 16:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh ho

File:DNN Wikipe-tan 2007-06-15.jpg

LOL. Very interesting. :) - TexasAndroid 11:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: The text translates to: "Youth Free - in Mangaland there's space for everyone."

Does that mean G-rated, or "no kids around"? --129.241.126.121 11:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Both meanings are possible in German (open for all sorts of puns and confuisions) but most of the time it means it's G-rated. In this case jugendfrei is just the title of the page targeting youth and young adults. --32X 01:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please add the above information to "Use outside Wikipedia" section, also request a better censoring of the Matthias Horx image. --129.241.126.121 11:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'd like this text added too: Please add this to the section Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan#Use_outside_Wikipedia:

• On June 15 2007 the German newspaper Dresdner Neueste Nachrichten (circulation ca. 31 000) used Wikipe-tan on the front page as well as next to an article on the variety of manga.

Was there any specific reference in the article to Wikipedia or Wikipe-tan? -Jmh123 14:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Having not seen the article, and not being able to read German even if I did, my speculation would be that the editors wanted a manga-style image, but did not want to hassle with getting permission for some normal character. So they chose Wikipe-tan since she's GFDL, so they could use her as a representative of the style without going through copyright permission hassles. Just speculation, but if she and/or the project are not directly mentioned in the article, this would be my guess at the logic of her appearance there. - TexasAndroid 14:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know. Even if you can't read German, the work Wikipedia should be recognizable, and if it's there, a translation could be pursued. I hope someone can find out. Whoever obtained the scan should be able to provide text of the article. -Jmh123 18:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

She may be GFDL, but they can't just use her without including a copy of the GFDL along with her. Corvus cornix 18:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point. Hadn't even though of that. But she's also under a Creative Commons license, or at least that specific image of her is, so would that allow for their use of her without a complicated license inclusion? I'm not as familiar with the nuances of the different licenses. - TexasAndroid 19:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That would probably depend on which flavor of CC she's licensed under. If she's CC-NC, then they can't use her, but if she's less restrictive, then they might have a claim. Corvus cornix 20:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA. I don't see any mention of CC or credit for the author so there would appear to be copyright issues.Geni 00:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Some information: I don't really know why Wikipe-tan has made it to the front page of DNN, since the article isn't very long. The article is (or assumes to be) from a young German adult living since 9 months in Japan. He wrote about mangas being virtually everywhere and in every kind of topic. (Really, not that interesting or new at all.) The article takes 4 of 6 columns in width and about 75% in height of the page; 1 column text, 3 columns Wikipe-tan. That makes an image of about 34×18 sqarecentimeters (~ 13.4"×7.1"). I couldn't find the time today to make a good scan, since it's larger than A4 paper size. This Wikipe-tan is not only licensed under GFDL but also under CC-by-SA. The by part was respected, the rest is more or less not done (maybe because there's still no simple text about "how to use this image in other media"). I could do the scan next week and upload it to commons (with the argument "image is CC-by-SA, so must be the article") or upload it to some random image host. And maybe I'll do a photo, since blurry text shouldn't be a problem at all.
Time for my question: I've uploaded the image this morning and just a few hours later it was already used. How have you found it? --32X 01:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Conservape-tan.png listed for deletion

I listed the newly-added Image:Conservape-tan.png for deletion here. Please weigh in on the issue. TomTheHand 17:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

On the IFD, Howchenge stated that the best way to go would be to discuss the image here, and if consensus is that it belongs on the page it should remain, whereas if consensus is that it doesn't belong here then it should be removed from the gallery and then listed on IFD as an orphan. So let's discuss it.

As I listed the image for deletion, I think it's already obvious how I feel about it. I think it's an offensive. Conservape-tan is dressed in a plain dress, wearing a cross and carrying a Bible, with American flag puzzle pieces in her hair. She looks angry and is pointing as if judging. This portrays offensive stereotypes: that Christians are judgmental, that Americans are Christian and conservative, that conservatives are all judgmental Bible-thumpers. Why don't we put her in a burqa and put Taliban flag puzzle pieces in her hair? Then she'd be even more conservative. I'm an American liberal atheist, and I'm bothered by all of this. TomTheHand 21:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Being "vaguely offensive" (as you indicated in your nom) is not a valid criteria for deletion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

...which is why its removal from the gallery is being discussed on this page. You think he doesn't know that already. If it's an orphan, then it can be removed. Tuxide 00:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The image is offensive and cannot be used to make a better encyclopedia. Being unencyclopedic is a valid criteria for deletion. TomTheHand 00:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete, this isn't Conservapedia or Uncyclopedia. We don't have images of Uncyclo-tan on here. We're getting a lot of really crappy images on here anyways. Tuxide 00:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that this has already been discussed a little here, on the talk page of Ned Scott, who originally removed the image. The reason I have an issue with Conservape-tan and not with, say, Afro-tan or Burqa Wikipe-tan is that Conservape-tan portrays a negative stereotype.

Afro-tan is simply a black Wikipe-tan with an afro. I would have a problem with Afro-tan if she were named as or otherwise implied to be a moe anthropomorphization of black people, but she's just a Wikipe-tan of a different race and hairstyle. I feel a little iffy about burqa Wikipe-tan, but similarly, she's just Wikipe in a burqa. She's not called Muslim-tan, she isn't meant as a anthropomorphization of Islam, and there's nothing negative in her portrayal. Give her a dynamite belt and we've got issues.

I have no problem with Wikipe-tan in general because first, she's an anthropomorphization of an object (Wikipedia) and not a group of people (conservatives), and second, she is portrayed positively: cute, hard-working, a little clumsy. Not white, Christian, American, and judgmental. TomTheHand 00:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, even if she was portrayed as a group of people, one would hope it would generally be positive or neutral. Afro-tan, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be negative. So the negative portrayal is what does it for me. You could make a Wikipe-tan nun and I probably wouldn't have a second thought about it.

With the lolicon image deletion, maintaining a good image for Wikipe-tan does seem to be in the interest of the community. It's generally safe to say that we don't want Wikipe-tan to be a sexually active 12 year old girl, or a nazi, or a pissed off religious zealot who's getting ready to backhand some child for saying "penis". Wikipe-tan can be sad, even angry, but she shouldn't really cause readers to be angry (within reason, since some people will find very silly reasons to get angry).

And it's not really that we're protecting her image, or saying "zomg, you can't do that!". It's just.. this image, for whatever reason, we don't want it on Wikipedia. It's not like I completely dislike the image (the image has been saved in my own copy of Wikipe-tan images), it's just.. doesn't seem like a good idea for it to be here. -- Ned Scott 02:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm removing the image. If it's not posted on the Wikipe-tan page, I don't really care about the IFD; if it were just something the creator had on his user page I never would have started an IFD. TomTheHand 15:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

New designs for Wikipe-tan

What's the policy on creating new versions of Wikipe-tan for use on Wikipedia? An image for Portal:Evangelion has been requested, and I had thought that an image of Wikipe-tan wearing A10 clips would be good, but I have no idea who to ask about how to go about doing this. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)