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 June 2007 - November 2007

Seriously?

Hey guys. I have to say, reading this page makes me cringe for Wikipedia. Pages like this go to reinforce the stereotype of Wikipedia contributors as being anime-obsessed geeks, and diminish the perceived credibility and reliability of the rest of the site. What does an image of a child-like anime figure have to do with an encyclopedia? 70.54.77.42 (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. She started out just being a mascot for the anime and manga specific efforts (WP:ANIME). If you see her expanding to other areas, that's because people like her, not because we tried to make her represent Wikipedia by force. -- Ned Scott 01:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you know this is only one of 6,827,463 articles on Wikipedia. I don't see how this one has any more impact than others. It's not even in the main article space. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Does that number even count WP-space pages? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. :-) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It's 2,136,737 articles which: excludes redirects, discussion pages, image description pages, user profile pages, templates, help pages, portals, articles without links to other articles, and pages for Wikipedia administration.[1]. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 10:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there you go. This page isn't even considered an article, per se. We're happy we could elicit a reaction, though. ;-) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like it, don't go to this page, IP man. --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 18:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, I concur 70.54.77.42. What an utter waste of time this wench is. Perhaps it would be appropriate for wikipedians to jettison this strumpet and allot more time to the augmentation of articles. Though, alas, 70.54.77.42, we must sadly cope with the fact that most wikipedians are -- well, I don't wish to offend anyone. -- Grammaticus VII (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

SUre you do, or you wouldn't have written what you did before changing it. If you don't like Wikipe-tan, that's fine. But there's really no point in bashing her existence as she's here to stay and isn't going anywhere, regardless of your opinion about her. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding all those images

Having a nice blurb is fine, but we really do not need an image gallery, much less in the project namespace. 88.66.29.245 (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please explain, should you disagree. 88.66.29.245 (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on this page is that the large gallery is acceptable. Please note that this page is not in the main article space, so many of the guidelines which apply there do not apply here (including the large gallery guideline). I think it would, perhaps, be better if you explained why you don't want such the large gallery? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't get 88.66.29.245's problem, what's the argument for removing the content? I personally think that the images are the content of this 'article' and don't need removing, 88.66.29.245 seems to be the only person who wants to remove them.  Doktor  Wilhelm  04:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive the misunderstanding. I am not afflicted by a problem. I do not think that this 'article' is a good article that is useful to Wikipedia. 88.66.29.245 (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Except it's not an article at all, any more than WP:FOOD is, to pull something off the top of my head. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As has been pointed out elsewhere on this page, this isn't a regular article as it resides in the Wikipedia namespace rather than the Main namespace. There's a big difference in what can and can not be included in each one. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of this. Why do you keep repeating this as if it were some sort of argument in your cause? 88.66.29.245 (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, some sort of "consensus" was reached on IRC about the page, even though discussions on IRC are not accepted as referenceable discussions here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not intend to refer to the IRC as an overruling force. Please forgive my lack of being concise. 88.66.29.245 (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

IRC isn't any force at all as the vast majority of editors here don't use it, and it's too easy to fake logs. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Because much value of this page is in the image gallery, which is both interesting and entertaining. It is not uncommon for project space to contain things that are largely intended simply to be fun/entertaining (WP:SPIDER, WP:LAME, etc.) Even if we don't strictly "need an image gallery", I think it is helpful to have one and keeping in the spirit of fostering Wikipedia community. What possible harm do you think this is doing? Dragons flight (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The spirit Wikipedia community is not well represented by a series of anime imitations. Wikipedia is not focused on anime. 88.66.29.245 (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

So? And I ask again, what harm does it cause? No, not everyone enjoys Wikpe-tan, anime, or any of that, but many people do. Wikipedia is not really focused on anything, it's an encyclopedia. Different parts of it will reflect different aspects of its users' and editors' interests. Dragons flight (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how your image gallery fosters Wikipedia the encyclopedia community? 88.66.29.245 (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's the perfect example of 'fostering' the libre mentality that Wikipedia represents. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been asserted already? 88.66.29.245 (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not daunted by your colorful user page links. You can host your fanart on deviantart and provide a link at the bottom. 88.66.29.245 (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As much as we appreciate your enthusiasm in improving the Wikipe-tan article, your edits were too drastic. As well, you should note that any consensus reached must be done so on Wiki. Anything done outside of Wiki (e.g. via chatrooms, IM, in a library...) with other editors will not be taken into consideration. As well, WP:BOLD is not a valid reason to delete a substanial amount from the page. The guideline is designed to encourage editors to improve articles (example: a person may not feel their edit is up to par and will be discouraged to submit it while in fact it may be an immensely great change). However, that doesn't protect their edit from being reverted if it's considered impairing, especially by the majority of editors. A good faith edit is not always a correct one. Discussion is highly encouraged to pleade the case for an edit. Don't think our minds can't be changed if you bring up good points in your arguement. Simply inferring 'I don't like it' isn't enough. Fox816 (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember anyone saying you should be daunted by them (or have them affect you in any manner whatsoever). Diverting the subject isn't going to help your cause at all. Rather, present your argument with any supporting reasoning, evidence, etc., and then let discussion happen. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This page isn't an article - in the sense that it's not within the criteria of common search - and thus such are permitted. Anything relevant and appropriate to the Project in question is included, hence why the range of Wikipe-tan images are there. As far as encyclopedic value is concerned, the page fulfills it's purpose in noting the conception and history of Wikipe-tan as well as her impact as being one of Wikipedia's personifications. If this was an actual article then the gallery would be omitted. However, this is only a project page within the scope of WP:ANIME (which is why it's all anime related material as much as the Project Page for Japan is all Japanese related, Project Page for Math is all Math related - though none are center or represent Wikipedia as a whole but contribute to improving the portions of Wiki that are in it's grasp) and are not restricted like an actual article. Yet, as editors we are still responsible for maintaining the integrity and value of the page as it is seen fit according to our area of focus (anime). Fox816 (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As stated before: If you do not like it, do not go here and bother us. This page is fine as is. --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 03:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP dude - To restate the obvious: Your best bet is to back off of this crusade; you appear to be the only person with an objection to the gallery, and ignoring the fact that this page doesn't fall under the same rules as actual Wiki articles do won't make your case (such as it is) any stronger or your actions any less unwarranted. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The major problem seems to be that this just reinforces Wikipedia's opinion of itself as the "highest" website on the internet. If you're giving yourself an image gallery for something that most people have never (not to mention will never) heard of, why not do it for everything else? Why cut down pages about most anime and then leave Wikipe-Tan when most people don't even know what a tan is? I'll tell you why: To bolster Wikipedia's e-go. I'm not saying Wikipedia is a bad site, because it's not. It's awesome. But if you really want to be encyclopedic and nonpartisan, you should probably cut this article down to size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.21.146 (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Unofortunately that logic is flawed, and there isn't even any bigger issue to this. There's more to Wikipedia than just the heavily policed mainstream articles you see. It's already been explained why this page is handled differently than articles. Taking the time to read them and go more in-depth about what the Wiki is would have saved you much trouble. Fox816 (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have large galleries of other anime because most of it is copyrighted. However, we due have HUGE galleries of stuff, even when they don't have articles. We just keep most of them on Wikimedia Commons. Another reason why we focus on Wikipe-tan isn't because of who she is, but because she's inspired a great deal of free-content use over non-free-content use (copyrighted stuff). Shortly after she became a mascot for the anime project here, people started asking the artist Kasuga to draw other things (and not just Wikipe-tan) to give free visuals to articles (see Commons:Category:Works by Kasuga). This also has inspired other people do to the same for areas of their interest.

Could it be part ego? Maybe. But the end result is not just something to be an anime nerd about, but something that has actually yielded practical results for the project. -- Ned Scott 06:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Vectored Wikipe-tan

Did the person who said they'd vector Wikipe-tan ever get it done? If so, we can re-instate Wikipe-tan as a Featured given she passes through the trails again. Fox816 (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think it's absurd that the image was removed from the featured images because, despite being very large, the image "pixellated". There are tons of "pixellated" large images which are featured. I suspect it was just someone who didn't like the fact that "one of those anime images" became a featured image. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I know. Unfortunately I was too late to put my input. Yet a completely vectored image of Wikipe-tan would be supremely great in smoothing out her look so it would needed to have been done anyways. However, I do agree that taking her out because the overall sentiment against it was largely due to the picture being "cartoonish" was uncalled for. Fox816 (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think, in many cases, the whole "Featured" article/image/list/etc. system is very suspect. A very small number of editors have final say on any decision, leaving hte system open to possible abuse by a small number of people with bias for or against a particular thing. This prejudice showed when the Wikipe-tan image was de-listed for no legitimate reason. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

In the end it came down to aliasing (easily correctable via vectoring) ...though that was only really decided upon by a couple of editors from the last discussion to delist it since most of the time and energy spent was on WP:SELF which was in the end thrown out by the nominator. I understand that the bias judgment can go both sides: against because its "cartoonish", or for because its "kawaii"...or so they say. Yet Wikipe-tan is exceptional in that she already made impact in the media and public. Additionally, the image meets all the criteria for being featured. I'm more focused on getting that vector in and getting her back up there. Fox816 (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask the user again on Commons. -- Ned Scott 08:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Another update on this: commons:User:Editor at Large has placed a notice on his talk page saying he had become ill, hoped to be better soon, and has made two edits since then. So I'm taking that has he's still recovering, busy, or something. For the time being, we might want to seek out another user who is up to the task of vectorization. (although I'm still very thankful to Editor at Large for offering to do it). -- Ned Scott 06:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Another update! Editor at Large has left me this message on my talk page:

"Hello! I'm SO so so terribly sorry about taking so long to reply, I've been sick for ages... I've started work on vectorizing Image:Wikipe-tan full length.png since I finally have a tablet (I was using a laptop touchpad before, it's not easy to use to draw!). The other Wikipetan svg I did was a basic edited traceover since it was needed quickly, but with this one, since it's replacing a featured picture and is more important, I'm doing a full redraw and top-quality job on. Judging by the amount I got done working for about 4 hours yesterday I will say I can probably get it done in about about one to two weeks - depends on how much time I have to work on it and how kindly my illness treats me!

"Again I'm so sorry for the delay, but please tell everyone at WP:TAN I'm working on it and haven't abandoned them ;) -- Editor at Large • talk 10:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)"

Now I hate to make a big deal about this, because I told EaL to take it easy and not push himself, but.. freakin' awesome! So with a bit of luck we'll have another FPC a few weeks or a month, and one that will definitely stick this time. -- Ned Scott 06:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan's birthday

Wikipe-tan, a personification of Wikipedia, just turned 7 on the 15th. Will we see any sort of birthday images of her, possibly blowing out a cake w/ 7 candles (or with a plastic "7" on the center of the cake), looking just a wee bit older, etc.? I think Wikipe-tan ought to grow up alongside Wikipedia this way. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 01:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Kasuga's a bit overworked at the moment. --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 23:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons-tan and Quote-tan are not really cropped

Is there a solution to this, or should we put those two in an existing section or a new one? --Addict 2006 20:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps make a Relatives section? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)