Talk:Fan service

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fan service is part of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of anime and manga. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Looking to help? Check out the Anime and manga To-do:
Fan service is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Japan To-do:

A spoiler warning is useless if you don't know what narrative work is going to be spoiled, since someone who wants to avoid spoilers won't know if they've already read/seen the work in question already or not. Either the warning should be clarified to say what works are spoiled, or the spoilers should be deleted. (I guess it's in reference to the homage section; those could probably be altered to omit the narrative details of the exact circumstances in which the homages occur, and simply keep the description of the homage itself.)

Contents

[edit] Being More Specific

How many shows have guns or cars? Even shows that have specific guns or cars? Just name the gun or name the car. That's all I ask. --Karmafist 03:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Please explain, a little more specifically, what on earth it is you're asking. I mean, the basic concept doesn't seem very hard to grasp; there are people who will buy magazines solely because the magazine has lots of detailed, loving photos of guns. Or motorcycles. Or automobiles. Or vintage automobiles. Or aircraft. You get the idea, I hope. Therefore, it can be considered "fanservice" when a manga or anime includes detailed, loving illustrations of guns/motorcycles/automobiles/aircraft/et cetera. Now, exactly what is it that you wish to see, without which you are refusing to let that basic explanation into the article? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I mean more specifically by "what you mean why these 'people buy magazines solely because the magazine has lots of detailed, loving photos of guns, motorcycles or automobiles, etc'" and at least say which guns, motorcycles, automobiles or whatever these people are caring so much about. I've lost track of how many animes have guns in them, Gunsmith Cats probably would be considered significant since Rally Vincent owns a gun shop, but we can get even more exact since she uses a specific, trademark gun. I should have made that edit in the first place.
Ah, so you mean instead of "Hayao Miyazaki's work often contains detailed images of aircraft", you mean "Hayao Miyazaki's work often contains detailed images of aircraft, such as the refitted Dornier DO X around which the Lupin III episode "Flight of the Albatross" revolves..." That example's not quite accurate (it was based on the DO X but not a DO X itself) but is that the sort of thing you mean? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

If you'd like to respond and continue this discussion, please do so, but try not to use the word "loving" so much. It's getting kind of creepy...Karmafist 03:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, so are some of those magazines. =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
lol, that's true. Karmafist 14:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Gainax Bounce?

I have to admit, reading over this and the Gunbuster article, I have to argue the point that jiggly breasts wasn't introduced in Gunbuster, as the Daicon IV bunny girl jiggles a bit 5 years prior, and wasn't even invented by Gainax. I'm pretty sure that Fujiko Mine bounced quite a bit ten years before Noriko did. However, I would concede the fact that Gunbuster was the first to introduce it to American audiences, as it, Appleseed, and Dangioh, were released by U.S. Renditions, the first American release of unaltered Japanese animation.--YoungFreud 11:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Which shows and movies?

Which shows and movies have panty shots? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.240.200.44 (talk • contribs) .

I don't care! Just tell me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.240.200.44 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not listening and I'm going to keep asking until you tell me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.240.217.50 (talk • contribs) .

The only ones I know are, Winx club, Jungle de Ikou, and Zatch Bell. signed by Coconutfred73

More I need more!

[edit] Correct Definition?

"a vaguely defined term...to refer to elements in a story that are unnecessary to a storyline, but designed to amuse or excite the audience."

By this definition, wouldn't any sort of joking or humor that doesn't directly further the story be considered fan service? It this the intended definition?

[edit] technical?

How the hell is the use of lagrange points in gundam a nod to fans? That is stupid. it's called SCIENCE! Using the correct terms is hardly a nod to nerdy fans. This whole section seems to be added for no reason whatsoever. To quote Handy, "READ A BOOK!" WookMuff 08:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipe-tan

Moved from WP:ANI:

Regarding fan service, User:Ned Scott insists that adding three pictures of Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan does not constitute a violation of WP:SELF; I'm fairly sure it does, as Wikipe-tan is not notable outside the Wikipedia community. (If she were, she'd have an article by now, I'm quite certain of that.) I'm fairly certain I'm in the right here, but I'd like to hear some more opinions on this. Thanks. —Nightstallion (?) 09:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Those pictures are very cute, but you're right: They're a self-reference. I've removed them again. --Emufarmers(T/C) 09:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I view them as self-referential as well. -- Samir धर्म 09:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The following is copied from my talk page:

Wikipe-tan is not a self reference in the article fan service. She's a character called Wikipe-tan that is drawn showing some types of cosplay fan service. That is a far cry from saying "this Wikipedia article is...". Just because something is named after Wikipedia does not make it a self reference issue. You're totally missing the point of WP:SELF. -- Ned Scott 09:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you are. Wikipe-tan is not at all notable outside Wikipedia, and as such including it/her in articles is a clear violation of WP:SELF. Take it to WP:AN/I if you're unhappy with my interpretation of the rules. —Nightstallion (?) 09:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
There you go, I've put it up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan_and_WP:SELF for discussion, just in case you mistrust my opinion. shrugs —Nightstallion (?) 09:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Being notable is not the issue. She's being used as a visual example, such as a pie chart. Are most pie charts notable? Is this pirate notable at all?
Also, from WP:SELF: "Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important. If you read about Shakespeare's works, you are not interested in reading about Wikipedia's policies or conventions. If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia."
In addition, this is a style guideline meant to address specific concerns. This is not about ignoring the existence of Wikipedia or anything that might have been inspired by Wikipedia. Wikipe-tan doesn't mention the word Wikipedia at all, and only uses Wikipedia as a theme for her hair ties! -- Ned Scott 09:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right that original illustrations are not a breach of WP:SELF, of course. Still, you're using a fan-service-mascot of Wikipedia to exemplify fan service, not a neutral image without any special meaning attached to it (as is the case in lolicon). (Note: I've also copied this conversation to the WP:AN/I thread now and would suggest continuing the conversation there.) —Nightstallion (?) 09:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Self references negatively affect articles, how do images of a little girl with wikiball puzzle pieces in her hair negatively affect this article? Also, this is NOT an issue for administrator intervention, this is a style dispute. You're really stretching here, WP:SELF was not meant to strictly forbid anything referencing wikipedia, especially something that is indirectly related, such as a drawing inspired by wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 10:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition, several editors do not feel that her inclusion is a self-reference issue via her image's featured picture candidacy, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan. -- Ned Scott 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

First thing: please stop edit warring, Ned Scott in particular is in danger of breaking WP:3RR. Secondly, it's worth pointing out that Wikipe-tan's images are unique amomg most of our animé images in that they are free use, whereas many of those in animé-related articles are fair use (and tenuous fair use in articles like Animé). She should certainly be used instead of a fair use image. That leaves the question of whether any images should be used at all, which seems to be the alternative in this article.

And personally, I think that while the edit Ned is reverting to doesn't actually show much, the swimsuit or school uniform pictures do demonstrate fan service, being an established character dressed in cosplay for no apparent reason. I'm not a nerd expert on animé, but as I understand it, a "neutral image without any special meaning" like the lolicon picture wouldn't be fanservice. According to the lead section, fanservice "[refers] to elements in a story that are unnecessary to a storyline" - not quite sure if I'm describing this right, but drawing a random girl in a swimsuit isn't fanservice, whereas the episode of Nadesico where they all go to the beach (example chosen purely because it's one of the few I've seen) is fanservice. Likewise, Wikipe-tan drawn wearing a swimsuit is fanservice - if we tried to draw a 'neutral' alternative, it wouldn't be. Three is overblown though. I've tried to edit the article to show what I mean. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on both points. --GunnarRene 15:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, I can agree on that compromise after having thought it through. —Nightstallion (?) 18:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, the images only have to be an example of the concepts, they don't have to be an image of a well known character. The point of three examples was to show one character being used with these different outfits, using one image takes away from the example. Whether or not this is a true definition of fan service or not isn't the point, it's if she's a self-reference or not. I don't see how using one image is a "compromise" since any images of Wikipe-tan would be an issue if she was a self-reference. I understand what you are saying, but that isn't the issue here. I'll gladly defend the three images as a good example, but under a different talk heading as to not confuse the issues. -- Ned Scott 19:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think including two (edit: or three) images would significantly improve the illustration. While including Wikipe-tan in her 'normal' maid costume would provide a comparison, frankly I think it's pretty obvious that she's drawn wearing a swimsuit for the sake of wearing a swimsuit, and an extra picture would just be unnecessary clutter. Plus if the images are stacked vertically they start extending beyond the section they're actually illustrating. Now please stop making me talk about how many outfits we should show a cartoon drawing of a little girl wearing, I feel all creepy. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
So, if I understand this right, there is no issue of this being a self-reference? That is where the dispute occurred, it wasn't about how many images, but using Wikipe-tan at all. I'm definitely still going to debate using three images, but I'll save that for later. For now, are we past the self-reference dispute? -- Ned Scott 05:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, that's a bit of a double standard there to tell me to "stop edit waring" and say nothing to Nightstallion. I'm sorry if I reverted knee-jerk reactions that occurred before discussion. I hardly find that "warring", and I'd never go past the 3RR. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't care about the self-reference thing myself. I think it's nice that we have pictures that can be used freely in this way without worrying about trademark or copyright. And my warning to stop edit warring applied to everyone involved - at the time you were the only one who was going to break WP:3RR with your next revert, however. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I snapped at you about the edit warring comment. I see your point on the cluttering concern, not sure if I'm convinced on it, but in either case I'm glad the whole "self-reference" thing has been cleared up. -- Ned Scott 10:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Instant solution: Make a composite image of her in her normal outfit (school uniform or maid) and her swimsuit. That is possible since she's GDFL. Other alternative would to have several non-free fair use images....--GunnarRene 06:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I still prefer just one image. Partly because of the clutter thing I mentioned above, but partly because according to the list that the image illustrates, both her "normal outfits" can be used in fanservice as well, so I genuinely think that it could be confusing with a composite and the point of the illustration is obvious without it :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I would support using the single image. And while using that image may be a self-reference, I don't think we have better, free alternatives, and moving from free to non-free is generally opposed. --tjstrf 01:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/a/n/Talk%7EFan_service_1b9f.html"