Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Wikipe-tan

One of our mascot characters, our adorable Wikipe-tan :) Drawn by User:Kasuga and used for illustrative purposes on the Moé anthropomorphism page.

Result: Promoted Image:Wikipe-tan full length.png Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 00:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - _dk 02:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I second and happily support. She's so adorable! n.n<3 ~Kylu (u|t) 02:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Featured content should not be self-referential. Outriggr 03:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The criteria does not forbid self-referential material. _dk 03:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I think this is implicit. I recently saw a discussion somewhere about how the article "Wikipedia" could not fairly be a featured article on the front page. I believe similar values should apply to featured pictures. Outriggr 04:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is a featured article though. If you follow that reasoning, this should be made a featured picture, but it should never appear on the front page. —Keenan Pepper 04:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Exactly. And since all FP's eventually appear on the front page..... Outriggr 05:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Wrong. All FP's don't necessarily need to appear on the front page, just as all FA's don't. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-02 19:23
              • Brian, you'll have to excuse me if I'm incorrect, but my statement was based on "Featured images are currently selected in the order they were promoted. See the featured pictures candidates archive for this order.", from the Picture of the Day page. Outriggr 21:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
                • How does that imply that all FP's should be on the main page? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-06 15:59
                • Ironically she's on the Main page right now, unrelated to this FPC. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
            • See my comment below about how her value is more than her Wiki name and theme. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Wikipedia is very likely to be not a FA in a short while. See WP:FAR. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
                • Interesting, but besides the point. -- Ned Scott 09:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oooh, this is a tricky one. She is adorable, and the image satisfies all the FP criteria except possibly #5 (adding value to an article). It does appear on OS-tan and Moé anthropomorphism, though, and it seems to add some value to those, so I say weak support. (The "weak" is because of the self-promotion issue, and also because I'd much prefer an SVG version.) —Keenan Pepper 03:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support nice illustration and fits most if not all of the criteria. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 04:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support It's very hard to find quality free license anime images, and often time such articles are forced to make a fair use claim. Thus her worth is more than just being a -tan for Wikipedia. With this in mind I think I'll look for some more appropriate articles for her to show up on, as I'm a bit surprised to see she's only on 2 actual articles right now. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Doesn't matter that it shows wikipedia. This is one of the VERY few examples of anime art in wikipedia that is not fair use. It also illustrates the very wierd concept of Moé anthropomorphism well. -Ravedave 05:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    Hah I didn't notice Ned Scott's entry I was thinking in exactly the same line. -Ravedave 05:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Don't really find it that spectacular. Image suffers from a lack of antialiasing. Also I personally hate that kind of cartoon - they're degrading good old Bugs bunny and the like! (Eyebrows ontop of the hair! :-) --Fir0002 12:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Opposing the image because you hate anime is just.. flawed. This isn't about your personal tastes here. The image suffices for all the criteria on Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?. There are featured articles on subjects that I roll my eyes at, but that doesn't change the fact that the article itself is well written, has references, and everything else required to be a featured article. It's the same issue here, it's not about whether or not you like the art style or like the culture. -- Ned Scott 13:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
No I'm not opposing for that reason I simply added that as an extra part to my comment. I'm opposing because I don't find it a spectacular example of cartoons/anime and I think the image should have had antialiasing applied (note the jagged lines on the legs etc) --Fir0002 21:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Though I support the pic, Fir0002 has a right to disagree based on taste. See criteria #7 "Be pleasing to the eye." FP is and always will be subjective. -Ravedave 21:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
True, but I don't understand why it would have to be a "spectacular example" for anime. I always figured "impressive yet neutral" was more the Wikipedia way. -- Ned Scott 23:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: You saying this images degrades "Bugs Bunny and the like" is extremely ignorant. You are obviously unfamiliar with the subject matter this illustrates, as if you'd watched some anime that isn't Pokemon or DragonBall Z, you'd know that many manga/anime artists draw eyebrows on top of the hair. Even if you were being tongue-in-cheek, it has no place here, and does not justify your oppose vote. - Phorque 08:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Wait a sec, I know such comments can be frustrating for us anime fans, but I already made the mistake of snapping back at this comment (and for that, I apologies). You can see from Fir0002's comments that he has additional concerns besides that, and as Ravedave pointed out, he does have a right to oppose. -- Ned Scott 08:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not up to the standards of commercial anime/manga. The character design and pose are basic, and the hands in particular stand out as poorly drawn. I don't think I agree with the notion of promoting a second-rate image just because it's one of the only ones under a free license. Redquark 14:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I very much disagree with this assertion. Anime style and quality has a huge range on the commercial market, being "simple" does not make something low quality in the anime world. -- Ned Scott 00:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not horrible, but I know fanart when I see it. I'll bet the artist isn't able to draw characters in anything other than a 3/4 view. Redquark 13:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I didn't list her under anime, but moe anthropomorphism instead. And please keep it civil, the artist is also a wikipedian. _dk 08:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. How much do you bet, Redquark? --Kasuga 12:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I looked at the guy's work a little beforehand to see if I was claiming something false but managed to miss that one. Still, OK, sure you countered what I specifically said, but not the underlying point. Show me the character in a funny position with foreshortening and then I'll concede the artist has more ability than I thought. Redquark 13:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Why do you use roundabout words like "the guy" and "the artist"? Though I am the artist himself. --Kasuga 17:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The picture is a fullbody portrait, typical for portraying a character's attitude and dress.--Spyderchan 00:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - not high quality, does not add substantially to or help understanding of the article, self reference BigDT 19:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • See above, there's nothing wrong with self referential material. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 23:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be one of those users who just "has to" address every opposing comment, but I really don't understand how you can say that she doesn't help in articles such as Anime or moé anthropomorphization. These totally visual concepts, and if you look, she's the only free use image we have for these articles. She's a perfect example of "typical anime", just as much if not more than the fair use examples that are also used. With this logic, Wikipe-tan and similar images do substantially add to an understanding of what anime looks like. I really don't see how anyone can make the argument that she doesn't show you what anime (or moé anthropomorphization) looks like, or that images aren't needed for these articles. -- Ned Scott 23:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Just because they are not explicitly prohibited doesn't mean there is "nothing wrong" with them. Featured pictures are supposed to showcase the best we have to offer ... and a self-referential picture is not it. BigDT 00:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If this does get promoted, I do not think the POTD caption has to be a self-reference and mention anything about it being a moé anthropomorphism of Wikipedia, or it being a mascot of a WikiProject. It can just basically say it is an example of anime. Otherwise, there will be most likely be complaints posted on Talk:Main Page, etc. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment/question In response to the "jagged lines" on Wikipie-tan when you see her at full size: in the case that Kasuga isn't able to provide a version that fixes that, couldn't we just scale the image down slightly and still meet requirement number 2 (which says "images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported")? Her image is large enough to do this, and it really wouldn't "sacrifice" anything. -- Ned Scott 00:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Cute, free, and Wikipedia in one -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I like it.Nnfolz 05:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Per Thygard. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Quite a good cartoon. Free use, even better. Large enough so that full-size pixelation doesn't matter. Self-reference no problem, a good example of an anime character. --Janke | Talk 06:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Ned Scott. —pfahlstrom 07:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose--Vircabutar 07:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure this isn't a vote.. so maybe you'd like to actually say why you oppose? -- Ned Scott 08:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    Don't fool yourself. It's a vote. Same with RFA, AFD, etc. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-03 14:39
    Wrong. It's not a vote, and neither is AFD. Quote The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. --69.204.179.124 17:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    Again, you're fooling yourself. You can quote anything you want; that doesn't change reality. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-06 16:01
  • Support - I'm surprising myself here, but, really, this is a perfect illustration of a pretty bizarre concept. The fact that it's a Wikipedia anthropomorphisation detracts slightly for me, but not badly so. Stevage 10:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. If the 'jaggies' can be fixed, I'll support. Otherwise, it's an oppose. I'm not bothered by the self-referential nature, because it illustrates moé very well, even without knowing that the image is an anthropomorphism (homomorphism, gynomorphism?) of the 'pedia. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good, free image, and it certainly contributes to wikipedia as a whole if not any specific article. Besides, she's cute. --tjstrf 18:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose - I dunno, maybe I just have a case of Anthropomorphobia but this seems kinda dull. I don't get why she's dressed up as a maid. And I have to agree with some of the others that some areas are not especially well drawn. Is she sticking out her tounge? --Henry A-W 20:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
See Fanservice (and look, she's there too :D). Not sure what you mean about the tongue, the way the mouth is drawn is pretty typical for any animation, not just anime. -- Ned Scott 22:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ultra Support. I've always wanted to see an anime-related thing on the front page. She's a great character, and this certainly meets the featured picture specifications. Heck, I may even make this image into a T-shirt. It would make a good conversation enhancer. Now all that's left is to make her official mascot of Wikipedia. :P --Ppk01 21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. High-quality, user-created exemplar. --Oldak Quill 23:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just thought I'd point out that this image is currently on the Main Page accompanying some text in the "Did you know..." section! -- Ned Scott 23:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like they changed it to a cropped version of her (they must have wanted to see her better :D), but none the less, same image Image:Wikipe-tan cropped.png -- Ned Scott 04:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the caption on DYK never ever mentioned the name "Wikipedia".[1] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the alt text on the image of that DYK read "The moé anthropomorphism of Wikipedia". _dk 10:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Which just goes to prove our point in that she is not always a self-reference, depending on context. In the context of her being an example of moé anthropomorphization, Anime, or Fan service, just to name a few, would not require the mentioning of the word "Wikipedia" at all. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: forget the artwork, where's the encyclopedic content? The image needs an extended caption describing in what ways it is meant to be an accurate representative of *-tans. This is especially important because it wasn't found "in the wild", as it were. Melchoir 23:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
An easy fix, but she's currently protected because she's on the main page, so it might be a little bit before that can be fixed. -- Ned Scott 23:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
True, hmm. Well, as long as people are watching, can't we (and by "we" I mean other people) hash out a description on this page? Melchoir 23:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
She's back open, but anyways I have a question. There's a few images of Wikipe-tan, and she has a Wikipedia namespace page at Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan that seems to have the additional write up you are requesting. Would be pointing to this page be enough, or should I just cut and paste? Since there's more than one Wikipe image, wouldn't it be better to have an over-all page with the write up instead of repeating it on each image? Not that it would really be a big deal or anything, either way. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
On that page the only encyclopedic information is about her name: "The "-tan" in her name is a hypocoristic suffix, in the form of a Japanese title." It says nothing about the image itself. And even though it's no longer protected, Image:Wikipe-tan full length.png is still devoid of content. Melchoir 19:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. See my comments below, hopefully that is more of what you are thinking? -- Ned Scott 08:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the comments of many, specifically that it isn't the best representation of anime we can have. Morgan695 01:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
But she's also a representation on moé anthropomorphization and fan service. Even if your personal opinion is that she doesn't reflect average anime, she's still a hell of a good example for moé anthropomorphization. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
She is an example of cell shading, an important feature of anime. She also displays many features non-anime watchers and non-manga readers attribute to the medium (large eyes, childish nature, etc.)--Spyderchan 00:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice.--Generalnonsensecomic 01:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support She was specially created for the Wikipedia --Taichi 04:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Picture isn't particularly eye-catching or amazing, but being the best free image we have for lots of situations, it's pretty good. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support She's Wikipe-tan, that's enough. L-Zwei 05:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Um actually that's not. --Fir0002 06:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think he was serious ;) -- Ned Scott 06:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Like many have said, this meets the criteria. Wikipe-tan is a well loved character and I would like to see her as a featured picture. Calicore 06:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support I'm not sure exactly how to go about judging these "cartoons". I weak support it because it meets criteria, but I don't know how encyclopedic it is. It reminds me a lot of Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Pirate. --Tewy 06:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Creepy as hell, but the perfect example. Staxringold talkcontribs 06:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I love it! KAWAII. OMFG KAWAII ^____^ <3 :3 ^_^;;;;;; -=insert other fangirl sterotype here=-— Deckiller 07:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Some have said that she isn't a very good anime drawing, and perhaps that is the case, but she does demonstrate Moé anthropomorphism very well. —Cuiviénen 08:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I find that I agree with the nom and most supports above and do not find most people's oppositions because of taste/opinion of the drawing style at all relevant. Anime/manga has a HUGE range of quality/styles, why should she reflect only your personal taste? Other criticisms such as the need for anti-aliasing etc, are easily addressed if it really holds this back from being FP. On a side note: I don't really think "OMFG KAWAII!!!^___^<3" is a reason to support, but hey. - Phorque 08:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't seem we'll actually need to "fix" the anti-aliasing issue. Even without Dante Alighieri's conditional support, she's sitting at 73% support.
Considering the size of the image, we could just scale her down and re-upload and she's still be huge and wouldn't have the aliasing issue. However, that seems a bit silly to me, because if we just keep her file the same but scale the image via the browser it will make the exact same effect, and preserve more of the image's quality. I doubt she'll ever be used at "full size", and thus it's not really an issue.. Like I said, any downscaling or filtering would actually reduce the over-all quality preserved and not really change what you see on articles. -- Ned Scott 09:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Just because more people aren't holding "hostage" their support votes, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to NOT fix the aliasing. Anyone who wants to use the image in print (or on, say, a t-shirt) will appreciate the highest fidelity image possible. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Please fix it. —Keenan Pepper 19:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh, did you not read what I said? A "fix" would most likely be decreasing quality, via a filter or scaling the image down. -- Ned Scott 01:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, there's more than one way to skin a cat. It sounds like your method of fixing it is a bust... are there truly NO other ways of fixing it? Such as (perhaps) asking the author to do something about it, going back to the original source? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
This one is a png. Image:Wikipe-tan_frontview.png Kasuga did a very nice job on this one. I like it better than the one nominated. --Kunzite 04:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could the image be converted to an SVG? --Oldak Quill 11:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
From ja:利用者‐会話:Kasuga#Image:Wikipe-tan.jpg, Kasuga, the creator, writes "Regrettably, I can't offer SVG version, because I drew it in raster format." -- Ned Scott 11:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Our very own -tan, and a very well done example of moe goodness. Kyaa the Catlord 13:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support — I think it's important for Wikipedia to diversify its featured pictures, and this image displays numerous Anime subgenres extremely well. Moreover, it encourages our image policies and is also very nicely done. — Deckiller 17:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, excellently drawn. - Mailer Diablo 23:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per all above. Excellent choice. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 00:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support — It's great! FireSpike 02:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent image! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see it as a good representation of Wikipedia. Cuteness is emphasized but it doesn't fit Wikipedia imho. And the image page is still devoid of explanations. --Bernard 03:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not about her being a representation of Wikipedia, it's about her being a representation of moé anthropomorphization, anime, OS-tan, or Fan service. Also, I asked before and have yet to get a response on the image description page (I've noticed other FP pages with little to no extra-write-up, btw). That is, since she has more than one image and we'd basically be repeating ourselves, is the page Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan considered this extra write-up, or do we actually have to cut and paste it into the individual images, such as the one being nominated here? If so, no problem, it will take less than a minute. -- Ned Scott 07:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Err, correction, I guess I did receive a response but missed it. -- Ned Scott 08:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
An anthropomorphization of Wikipedia is supposed to personify Wikipedia. This image doesn't do a very good job of that, so it isn't a very good example of an anthropomorphization.
  • Support, Wikipedia, nice picture, and anime all in one. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Update I've added some additional text to the image description page, as requested. I'm not sure if this is what others had in mind, but I tried to cover as much as I could with the current info available. Does this suffice? -- Ned Scott 08:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan, drawn by Kasuga. Wikipe-tan first appeared in the Futaba Channel on an unspecified date, drawn by Japanese Wikipedia user Kasuga. She is drawn in the "anime style" seen in many animations in Japan. She is the moé anthropomorphization of Wikipedia, similar in theme to an OS-tan. Moé anthropomorphism is a form of anthropomorphism where moé qualities are given to non-human beings, objects, concepts, or phenomena; the subject of which often becomes a bishōjo. Wikipe-tan is shown here in a kind of cosplay of a maid. She is seen with two of the Wikipedia logo puzzle pieces as hair ties, with a third piece decorating the front of her maid outfit. Like many moé characters in anime, Wikipe-tan appears to be a young girl.

In June 2006, this particular image surfaced as a mascot sample for the English Wikipedia's Wikiproject Anime and Manga, after the previous mascot (a fan-art image of the title character from Midori Days) was removed from the commons due to copyright problems.
Do we really need the "born" - it's just sounds so tacky! Otherwise pretty good. --Fir0002 09:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Aye, I've changed it to say "first appeared" instead. -- Ned Scott 09:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thnx, much better --Fir0002 10:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Pretty high quality drawing. I don't think it HAS to be world-class to be featured. There are plenty of photos that are hardly world-class that are featured just because of the value that they bring, and I think this image does too. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, if only to ensure that we don't make it seem like she's got some kind of official status with the project. I could very easily see someone misinterpreting her as being an officially endorsed representation of wikipedia. I'm looking at "the moé anthropomorphization of Wikipedia" here, which implies she's the proper one, and a drawing of, say, an adult, is incorrect. That kind of statement is against NPOV. Also, she makes me feel like a pedophile for looking at her. She's sexualized but has the body and face of a ten year old. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
How is she "sexualized"? She doesn't have breasts, or even lips! —Keenan Pepper 17:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. One would have to have a maid fetish for Wikipe-tan to be "sexualized" in these images, IMO. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hence the "body of a 10-year-old" comment. On the other hand, she's posed in a maid costume (a typical sexual outfit) and she's even cited as an example multiple times in the cosplay section of fanservice, a subsection of sexual (since it's usually about indulging a cosplay fetish). The image on lolicon is bad enough, we don't need a featured picture of a 10-year-old drawn to be sexy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
You must have some very weird sexual tastes if you think that a 10-year old with no breasts, no hourglass-shape, no lips, and no real skin showing at all is "sexy." — Dark Shikari;;;;;;;;;;;;;; talk/contribs 19:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
"drawn to be sexy" != "sexy to me" Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
First, this statement: "the moé anthropomorphization of Wikipedia", can be easily fixed. And that I did, look again. And, she's drawn to be cute, not sexy; you think too much. _dk 00:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Fan service is about giving fans what they want, which is not always sex! Some fans get their kicks from seeing cute things, and don't get a hard-on in the process. -- Ned Scott 09:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. While the image was created by a fellow Wikipedian, I strongly believe there are many images that could better represent the topic. But thats simply my opinion with FPC in mind, I personally just dont like it. -- AJ24 01:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What GFDL image do you suggest could represent the topic? Firefox-ko/Moezilla, OS-tan, and so on are all most definitely not GFDL. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Considering the wide range of styles of anime and so on, I fail to see this view of "better". -- Ned Scott 05:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Its purpose is not to illustrate "anime". I thought that after reading all the above comments you would know this. Its purpose is to illustrate moé anthropomorphism, of which it is an absolutely perfect example. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 08:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, her purpose is to be cute. We use her on more than one article.. so.. you seem to be a bit confused here.. She IS an example of anime, used on Anime. I've been reading all the comments, and this has been mentioned a few times.. She's also on Meido (was gonna put her on maid, but then saw that a more specific article had been created) and fan service. -- Ned Scott 09:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually Ned, I've brought up that she is not an example of anime. Of course we can use her in more than one article, but for the purpose of this FP nom...*EVERYONE PLEASE NOTE* This nom is about using the picture on moé anthropomorphism, not anime or anywhere else. So points such as "she does not represent anime well enough" or "She's being sexualized in the fanservice article!" have no grounds here. _dk 09:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Not that special/great. Also, the self-referrential thing makes me rather uncomfortable. --Hetar 05:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose too self-referential for my blood -- Samir धर्म 09:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Good example of a phenomenon that's becoming fairly commonplace in Japanese and anime-related Internet circles. -Seventh Holy Scripture 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment on self-reference Ok, this whole self-reference thing just seems to totally miss the point, so I took another look at WP:SELF, and look what I found:
"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."

Avoid self references is far more about how you write an article and making sure you don't confuse the reader, or use an example that won't make sense if the text is reprinted under a different "brand", etc. Wikipe-tan's examples are none of these. WP:SELF is not about ignoring the existence of Wikipedia. Many times screenshots of Wikipedia are used for articles on Web browsers, such as Safari (web browser), but I wouldn't call that a self-reference issue. Wikipe-tan is less of a self-reference than an example such as that.

In addition, Wikipe-tan is used on other articles which do not require the mentioning of Wikipeida at all. She's an example of the style of anime artwork, the cosplay maid theme, and probably more that I haven't thought up of yet. -- Ned Scott 09:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments noted, but I haven't missed the point, as you suggest. Wasn't quoting policy; I just believe that we should be choosing featured pictures that aren't based around the theme of Wikipedia. -- Samir धर्म 09:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
But why? The reason we avoid self references is "they are inappropriate in articles for two reasons. The first is that self-references are often considered disruptive in an encyclopedia because they distract from the topic at hand. A secondary concern is that self-references limit the use of Wikipedia as an open source encyclopedia suitable for forking, as permitted by our license."
Something being inspired by Wikipedia is a totally different issue. She's a little girl in a maid outfit with puzzle pieces in her hair, in the world of anime I would not be surprised at something like that happening at random. This is simply not an issue. -- Ned Scott 09:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Wikipe-tan is being challenged for inclusion at all as a self-reference violation, see: Talk:Fan service#Moved from WP:ANI -- Ned Scott 10:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. KAWAII Meets the criteria, and is a free (as in liber) illustration of moé anthropomorphization and OS-tan. But the abstract above seems too self-referential. How about this:--GunnarRene 14:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A moé anthropomorphization of Wikipedia, named "Wikipe-tan", similar in theme to an OS-tan. In Japanese animation, "moé" characters are those designed to elicit a protective or loving response from the audience. Moé anthropomorphism is a form of anthropomorphism where moé qualities are given to non-human beings, objects, concepts, or phenomena. Like many moé characters, Wikipe-tan appears to be a cute young girl.

Image credit: Kasuga
    • Comment Cuteness is POV. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • POV isn't a bad thing on Wikipedia. NPOV does not stand for no point of view, it stands for neutral point of view. Considering being cute is a part of the example, it would seem that being cute for this image is appropriate. -- Ned Scott 18:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, wait. I change it:

A moé anthropomorphization of Wikipedia, named "Wikipe-tan", similar in theme to an OS-tan. In Japanese animation, "moé" characters are those designed to elicit a protective or loving response from the audience. Moé anthropomorphism is a form of anthropomorphism where moé qualities are given to non-human beings, objects, concepts, or phenomena. Like many moé characters, Wikipe-tan is designed to be a cute young girl.

Image credit: Kasuga
--GunnarRene 19:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. While some may disagree, I like her and, while I am no artist myself, I see no problems with drawing quality or style. At least one person has brought up that it is not "of commercial quality" - well, the images aren't commercial which is precisely why they are valuable since they are GDFL and commercial images are not. I could also find "commercial" images of lower quality with little effort. Shiroi Hane 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - a quality image, and useful. Shame about the raster format, but that's not enough reason to object. Jkelly 16:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipe-tan may not be the highest quality anime out there, but she's such a cute mascot and I think it will draw readers in. --Marumari 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think maybe he was talking about point 7 when he says it will draw readers in: "Be pleasing to the eye. .... The picture should make a reader want to know more."? -- Ned Scott 19:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see.--GunnarRene 19:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
If you mean "understand" as in "why do people come up with this", then no. If you mean "understand" as in "what is moé anthropomorphism" I think it does; see the essay Wikipedia:Grapefruit. An argument could be made that since she anthropomorphizes Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia that may not be familiar to all readers of the text, instead of a common household or transportation object, she's not a perfect example of moé anthropomorphism. Are there any free (as in liber) images of equal or higher quality that do that?--GunnarRene 01:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Probably the most well-known example of moé anthropomorphism is OS-tan, and Windows XP is probably not a "common household or transportation object." Perhaps the article should be changed to reflect the fact that moé anthropomorphism can and often does apply to all sorts of inanimate objects and concepts. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The moé anthro.-article allready did say that, except that it also includes animate non-humans. No update needed. I said "common household or transportation object" because I'm envisioning a situation where Wikipedia content is used in printed form or on a $100 laptop in the countryside of Sierra Leone. If the content appears under a different brand than "Wikipedia", then Wikipe-tan might be a less suitable anthro. than, for example, an anthro. of a bicycle, book or laptop because it's an object that the reader is familiar with. On the other hand, the only guaranteed common denominator of readers is that they read (bicycles might be less common in mountain villages for example), and for non-blind readers an image of an anthro. of "text" or "an encyclopedia" would be a good object for anthro. Hence, Wikipe-tan.--GunnarRene 14:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
A grapefruit might make a good definition of "grapefruit", but it wouldn't make a good definition of "fruit" or "yellow". I mean understand as in "what is moé anthropomorphism", and this image definitely doesn't help me understand it. Am I missing something, or is this image nothing more than an anime-looking girl in a dress with a few puzzle pieces attached to her? I'm certainly no expert on the topic, but it's hard for me to see how this is even an example of moé anthropomorphism in the first place. MUSICAL 02:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Moé anthropomorphism is the act of drawing something as an anime-looking girl, essentially. And you're looking at one of Wikipedia, what do you think you are missing? _dk 03:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You mean that it doesn't show any other characteristic than being "A cute girl"? The character is an anthropomorphization. Some images that show this are below. They show some Wikipedia-like behaviour beyond being decorated with puzzle pieces. It is, however, not a requirement that the character engages in the behaviour in the picture, just that the character is an anthropomorp character. (Perhaps the school girl picture is more kawaii illustrative? Too bad it has a flaw beneath one foot.)--GunnarRene 03:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe when Wikipe-tan is notable enough to have her own article this one picture will make more sense. Until then, it's really only one picture, and nothing in this picture seems to have anything to do with Wikipedia save a few puzzle pieces which happen to be in Wikipedia's logo. Maybe Wikipe-tan is a moé anthropomorphism, but this picture doesn't illustrate it. MUSICAL 11:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Me-tan is a notable OS-tan, indeed the first OS-tan, but she doesn't have her own article either. And the picture (fair use non-free) on that article doesn't make it immediately apparent why she's a Windows Me personalization, you'll need to read the article for that. For many of the other -tans one needs to read List of OS-tans to find out how they personalize their OS.--GunnarRene 12:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You've made a good argument why none of the OS-tans should be featured pictures either. Does this have any relevance to the current nomination? MUSICAL 11:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The OS-tans are not free images. Let me give you an analogy to illustrate my reasoning: There are many pictures on V-2 rocket that I think add significant value to the article. There are, however, no images of the V2 actually exploding in London, just grainy pictures of launches and one that blows up on the pad. The top picture of a V2 on display is perfectly illustrative in the defenition section, even if it's not actually hitting London in that picture.--GunnarRene 17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support per nom and GunnarRene. There is no rule against self-referential items being featured. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The nature of the voting on this nomination, compared to all other nominations on the page, is, let's say, unusual. It is really attracting a lot of notice. Interesting. --jjron 11:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If that's the reason you are opposing then it's a violation of WP:POINT... -- Ned Scott 11:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
FYI I agree with many of the reasons previously stated for opposing, and see no need to reiterate them. But I'm delighted that it took you all of 3 minutes to deride my vote. --jjron 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
That was not my intention, note that I said "If that's the reason...". When that's all you say then it's easy to see how someone could have made such an assumption. -- Ned Scott 20:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: The image satisfies all the featured picture criteria (Wikipedia:What is a featured picture) and the self-reference here is no big deal. It adds great value to the article moé anthropomorphism as a lot of people above had said and personifies Wikipedia well enough. It doesn't look bad or anything and it's certainly better than a lot of commercial artwork. Worthy of the title "featured picture". WikiSlasher 12:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose -- ugly --T-rex 15:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
While you have right to express your feeling and taste. It's rude to said that with the artist being here. Be civil, Kasuga is Wikipedian as well.L-Zwei 18:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Little enecyclopedic value. ~MDD4696 15:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Such a statement means absolutely nothing without some sort of explanation. Please explain why it has "little encyclopedic value." I would like to request that the closing admin ignore all voters that refuse to give explanations for their opposition. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
... or for their support for that matter. --GunnarRene 19:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Not really: the "reason" for support is stated in the original nomination: Wikipe-tan is a good example of moé anthropomorphism. It can be assumed that all those supporting agree with it... otherwise why in the heck would they be supporting?  ;) — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 19:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
That does not address non-fulfillment of any of the criteria. What, specificaly, do you think is wrong with it? --GunnarRene 19:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It addresses criteria 5. MUSICAL 11:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Dude, the war is already won. --Shiroi Hane 13:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Wikipe-tan full length.png Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 00:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

support,the picture is as nice as other feature pictures.--Alltonight 08:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Support - She's so cute! --AAA! (talk • contribs) 02:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_picture_candidates_Wikipe-tan_d171.html"