Talk:Cosplay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope 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 assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:

Contents

[edit] Images

They're all Asian. Point: Bring in some variety. KyuuA4 17:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last paragraph biased

If cosplay is labeled as a general subculture - as opposed to a Japanese subculture, the bias would be lessed or eliminated al-together. 75.34.36.42 19:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The last paragraph seems tacked on and biased. It would be helpful if someone familiar with the controversy were to edit it.

I am not familiar with the controversy, but I think it's quite obvious that the paragraph simply doesn't belong in this article. So I moved it here for now. If this information is important and interesting (to me it doesn't look like), it should go into a separate article (or an article on one of these organisations). Paranoid 22:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In 2004, there's been a rise of people filming cosplay events at anime conventions and then uploading and hosting them on their personal websites. Deathcom Multimedia and Cosplay Memories are two examples. On October 1st 2004, Otakon, the largest anime convention in the United States, released a statement that can be found here stating that they sent a request to Deathcom Multimedia to remove all Otakon cosplay recordings from their website and Deathcom had removed all Otakon cosplay recordings. Otakon states their reasoning behind the move is in that fair use standards permit excerpts of Otakon's cosplay events for journalistic/review purposes but it does not allow for distributing the entire cosplay event on the internet, Otakon's interpetation of fair use standards can be debated and could be controversial. Otakon continues to state that if a site wants to distribute their cosplay event online, they must not only obtain Otakon's permission, but the permission from the cosplayers who were recorded and the copyright holders of the character who the cosplayer is cosplaying as, Otakon states that gaining permission from the cosplayers and copyright holders are the main reason why they are unable to host the event themselves, Otakon states that if they and Deathcom just host the cosplay events without doing the required things, they are subject to the risk of legal action by either or both the cosplayers and the copyright holders. Otakon continued that it is their hope to "come to some sort of arrangement going forward, but at this time it is not possible for Otakon to condone the redistribution of our cosplay and masquerade contests (or any other event)."

Besides dressing up for public events such as anime conventions There are no anime conventions in Japan, so this should be made more precise. The prime destination for cosplayers in Japan would be Comic Market. Comic Market is not a convention, let alone an anime convention. And then, Comic Market considers itself fundamentally a dojinshi market, and they make sure it stays that way.--Outis 12:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

.... Hi to above poster- you are right! I am a Japanese cosplay fan, have edited the page to reflect the kinds of events in Japan better, see what you think?

I'm pretty sure Comic Market is still the event that the most number of cosplayers show up at, ie, the biggest cosplay event. If a cosplay-specific event surpasses Comic Market in the number of attending cosplayers, they'll surely claim that. At that point, cosplay will be its own subculture orthogonal to otaku subculture. Point is that the only thing that comes close to a fan convention as known in the US are science fiction conventions.
But to be more constructive, we can list up what events cosplayers go to. There are cosplayers at science fiction conventions, but they tend to be few. They go to Comic Market. Besides Comic Market, cosplayers go to other otaku hobbyist markets such as Wonder Festival. They go to cosplay-specific events that are held in the exhibit hall of a convention center or in the event hall at an amusement park. They've been showing up at consumer shows such as Tokyo Game Show. On the other hand, tradeshows like the Tokyo Anime Fair (TAF) ban cosplay.
Strangely enough, plenty of exhibitors at TAF have booth staff cosplaying their very own employer's characters. The so-called maid cafes and cosplay cafes, abundantly found in Akihabara, have cosplaying employees. More importantly, both the business and customers recognize it as cosplay, a perceptual distinction from seeing an employee parade as Snow White or Alice at Disneyland. And then, some cosplayers get paid to model for cosplay publications now. These are some areas where cosplay has bled into commercial territory.--Outis 23:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The above is relevant and very interesting, and should perhaps be incorporated into the article. --Eyeresist 02:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cosplayer websites

Should this subsection be removed? It seems only to exist to promote individual cosplayers (i.e. vanity), and does not really supplement the information in the article, in my opinion. -Yipdw 10:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

How long is this game of Filipino revert tennis going to go on? Gentaur 06:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Password-protected pages are hardly useful resources on an open reference site. They just create a negative user experience. Mikeabundo 01:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not password protected, just protected from all editing other than by administrators (who aren't really supposed to edit protected pages without a consensus on the talk page). It's protected temporarily to enforce a cool down because of the silly edit war. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
He isn't referring to the fact that the page has been password protected; see the comments below for further information. -- Altaecia 14:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Mikeabundo - it is not your prerogative in any case to repeatedly delete the link without using the talk page or discussion page to justify your claims, as doing so could have averted the whole edit war. I suggest a more thorough review of wikipedia policies, for you and the other party involved. Personally, I have found that many webpages, cosplay or otherwise, require user registration, but still remain a valid resource. I would also like to point out, if I may, that the term "password-protected pages" you used to describe the site has an entirely different context from pages that simply require user registration. The website link in question belongs to the latter category, rather than the former. Mirshariff 02:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Mikeabundo has a form of vendetta against Filcosplay. Late last year, he purchased www.filcosplay.com as seen [here] soon after there were discussions about purchasing a domain name in Filcosplay (where he was registered at the time). Now, it appears he is determined to repeatedly delete Filcosplay's link in Wikipedia. If Filcosplay's automatic registration is as terrible as he makes it out to be, it should fail on its own without Mikeabundo having to engage in a smear campaign. He should let his own forum and Filcosplay stand on their own merits, and he should not use Wikipedia as his own personal battleground. He may have a right to silence everyone with a dissenting viewpoint in his own forum, but Wikipedia does not belong to him alone. --Keroberos 05:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to require Sherlock Holmes to detect some bad blood in the Filipino cosplay set, but doesn't the dispute essentially boil down to: which web sites(s) is/are the most notable in that country? If one is clearly moreso than the other, it would seem sensible to list only that one: no other country has more than one such site listed as being specific to it. Or are there other issues afoot that I'm missing? Alai 06:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

For Alai: What then are the pre-requisites to determine the most notable cosplay community of that country? If you are factoring in the length of the website's existence, the number of members, and the site most recognized within the Philippines, then filcosplay is the clear winner. Furthermore, Mikeabundo has acquired an unsavory reputation within the cosplay and other similar communities, and has shown himself not above deleting or editing posts that seem to contradict his own, notably that in his own forums. Evidence regarding what Keroberos has posted so far can be supplied if asked for. However, I am a concerned party in this matter, and to prevent bias on my part, I ask an administrator to please investigate this matter. I can provide contact information from different non-cosplay communities within the Philippines and you can ask them yourself for their own opinions regarding Mikeabundo, if it should even come down to that. I can also provide screenshots and the like regarding posts he has written himself, and his other attempts against filcosplay, all brought about in attempts to further his own forums. Feel free to suggest other means of contact that you can suggest, if you would like more details regarding this whole fiasco. Unlike the user in question, we have nothing to hide. --Altaecia 13:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Those would be not unreasonable criteria, yes. Essentially if you asked people knowledgeable about the scene there, "what's the cosplay community website for the Philippines", and the proverbial four out of five cats said "site X", then I'd think it would be sufficient to list "site X" only, as this article is not by any means supposed to be an exhaustive link farm. If other person want to list "site Y" simply because it's their personal preference (or some other such motivation), that's not especially compelling. I'd prefer to see some further input on this, to be clearer as to whether there's a consensus version yet, before I unprotect, though feel free to make a request elsewhere if you're not happy with that. Mikeabundo, if you disagree with the above, please contribute to this discussion. I don't see any prima facie evidence anyone here's done anything worse than mildly edit war, in what I will assume for now is a good-faith fashion: people's conduct outside wikipedia ought not be germane to this article, though I can sympathise with people that might have "prior issues", one way or the other. Alai 18:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Comparing the registered account numbers of an open-browsing forum and a required-registration forum is like comparing apples and oranges. Moreso even, if the required-registration forum clearly allows duplicate accounts. How many of those registered accounts are inactive, lurking, or duplicate (or triplicate, or quadruplicate, or quintiplicate)?
Age isn't a reliable criterion, either. Though Friendster came before Myspace, assuming Friendster to be the market leader based on that fact is questionable at best. Mikeabundo 01:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
So what's your precise claim? That both are about equally notable? That your site is moreso? Alai 06:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
All the concerns you brought up regarding duplicate accounts also applies to your own forums, Mikeabundo. No one administrator can truly boast of a forum with absolutely no duplicate accounts whatsoever. The fact that you frequently allude to and link topics from filcosplay to further your own forum threads (which I consider ironic) seem to indicate which forum has the more information of the two, and having the most information I believe, should be the best prerequisite. At the very least, threads and posts are never deleted in the Filcosplay forums for whatever reason, even if said posts contradict the opinions of its forum moderators, because members have a right to their posts. Can you say the same? The fact that some of the evidence we can offer as proof to your personal character can come from some of your own forum moderators, who have tried repeatedly to convince you of reaching a compromise, to no avail. In any case, we have done nothing to delete nor edit your forums link in the wikipedia until you began deleting ours with no explanation (and only after several attempts to re-add the link, only to have them deleted again the space of a few hours.)
Alai; the Filcosplay forum has no complaint against having both links up in the cosplay article. Mikeabundo obviously does, and therein lies the problem, and the main reason for the edit war. - Altaecia 13:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
An open, actively administered forum, accessible to more than just one registered group, is far more useful as an information resource on Wikipedia.
The question, then, becomes this: Do we cite an old, buggy, unadministered, limited-access forum because a handful of its registered users may have some niche historical significance -- or do we cite an actively administered, openly accessible forum because of its currency and usefulness as a living information resource?
Perhaps Altaecia is right that there is room for both, but each in the proper context.
By the way, Altaecia, Filcosplay fanatics calling Pinoy Cosplay "small" and Filcosplay "Largest and Premiere: Saving the World One Costume at a Time" doesn't help end the edit war, either. ;) Mikeabundo 14:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Define 'proper context'. Define 'old' in the term you use to describe the filcosplay forums. Define 'unadministered" - there are more moderators in Filcosplay than in your forums. Our administrator is currently present and is in contact with the rest of the moderators. You have a habit of saying a lot of big words, but with ambiguous meanings. And may I remind you that the Filcosplay members only began adding that term after the seventh or eighth time you have deleted their link in the article, out of frustration towards you, as I have mentioned previously - the history pages of the cosplay article are proof of that.
I also find it hypocritical how you imply that Filcosplay is an obsolete site, despite using Filcosplay threads and cosplay events mentioned in (the very active) Filcosplay as fodder for your own forums. Isn't it ironic that you - who claims Filcosplay to be an old, buggy, unadministered, limited-access forum - was ALSO a member until recently, when the Filcosplay moderators had to ban you for your behavior and actions against them regarding questionable domain names, as well as attempting to lure Filcosplay members in the forum to your own forums by posting your site links within the threads of conversation in the Filcosplay forum, often times in a blatant manner through hotlinking and making off-topic posts that pertain to your own forum site? I am citing this here because I think another prerequisite should be the reputation and good standing of the forum owner in question among like-minded communities. A majority of the Filipino cosplay community as a whole would not want a forum whose owner acts in such a manner to be their wikipedia representative. Altaecia 14:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Filcosplay has come up with variables to support their claim such as number of members (I think more than triple), length of operation, greater number of posts (about 10x more posts), and a greater library of information. Mikeabundo has insisted that these variables are not germaine to the argument. Siting, as far as I can see, required registration as his sole defense. Yet, if required registration was so delibitating, I think it would cease to exist, and, as a result, Filcosplay would be extinct rather than the thriving vehicle of information exchange that it is today. I agree that, to a certain degree, Pinoycosplay.com and Filcosplay are apples and oranges, but I think even a child can compare an apple the size of a watermelon to an orange the size of a pea.

Is there evidence to support the fact that Filcosplay is buggy and unadministered? If so, please support your statements with evidence. Automatic registration is hardly limited-access unless you are talking about the mod-only topics. Please support your allegations with facts and numbers rather than throwing unquantifiable generalizations.--Keroberos 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

China has a larger population than America. It also has a longer history. Does that make China the only superpower, Keroberos?
Filcosplay's founder and only administrator hasn't made a member-visible post in months. A Pinoy Cosplay member, registered on Filcosplay, complains of Filcosplay's bugs. Filcosplay's own members complain that its search engine doesn't work and its GUI customizations break up in IE. Filcosplay's founder and only administrator has lamented that Filcosplay is turning into a separate group, instead of a service to the Filipino cosplay community. Mikeabundo 14:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Mikeabundo, I guess your argument is that facts and numbers don't matter. All you've brought up are comparisons that don't even have anything to do with the subject. For every claim, there should be criteria based on logic, facts, and substantive evidence. All you're saying is that all the facts don't matter. What does then? --Keroberos 14:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, but facts do matter, Keroberos. Here are a few more facts for you.
How many unique visitors can view Filcosplay after over a year of existence? 1,102, maximum.
How many unique visitors have viewed Pinoy Cosplay in less than a quarter of growth? 17,582.
Suddenly, that orange doesn't look like a pea, does it? ;) Mikeabundo 14:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Here we go again. Can someone please explain to Mikeabundo that unique hits is not a valid comparison to number of members? As to the issues, I'm sure Filcosplay has issues and it's there for the members to see. That's what you do with issues in a forum, you air them. The reason why there are no issues with Pinoycosplay is that you delete them. I guess that's one advantage Pinoycosplay has over Filcosplay, they have no issues to discuss while in Filcosplay issues are tackled and argued. Perhaps that's what makes Pinoycosplay superior. --Keroberos 14:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
And there's the rub. People go to Wikipedia for information, not site issues. Mikeabundo 14:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Information that you have gotten from a site you claim is obsolete, in a forum decidedly Orwellian by nature. Though I am glad to see you posting links to your site again during the thread of conversation in the hopes people are curious enough to click them, which I had stated above, as yet another proof of my claims against you. And you are contradicting yourself. If people go to wikipedia for information rather than site issues, then why are you stating Filcosplay's site issues (including required registration) as a reason to exclude it from the links? We know you are aware that Filcosplay offers more information as a whole. After all, you take that information for your site as well.
I think any administrators viewing this discussion has seen enough to act accordingly. Filcosplay again, has no problem with both links appearing on the page; the other side still wants to contend with the issue and apparently has no intention of compromising. Claims for and against have been given, and further proof (on the part of Filcosplay at least) will be provided if asked for. - Altaecia 15:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Filcosplay lacks information. Philippine cosplay event organizers announce and propose events on Pinoy Cosplay without mentioning them on Filcosplay. Mikeabundo 2:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
This admin only wishes. The above discussion seems to largely be about which site ought to be the more notable, not which actually is, and it's hard to discern much of a consensus without somewhat wider input. Which is the more written about, the more linked-to? If the current feeling is to include both, is there any agreement about how each should be characterised? Alai 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Some registered Filcosplay users may have some niche historical significance. Buried among Filcosplay's site issues is one year's historical record of that local group's growing pains, if you care to register for that.
A Wikipedia user who wants timely, accessible information and discussion about the global Filipino cosplay scene is best served by Pinoy Cosplay. Mikeabundo 2:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
A wikipedia user wants the notable relevant external links, and you're not even trying to address that question, but would instead appear to be rationalising "bigging up" your own link. I'm unprotecting in the hope, rather than the expectation, that some sort of consensus will emerge. I'll be checking back in to ensure revert-warring hasn't broken out again. Alai 02:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to deal with facts rather than conjecture in this case. FACT: Filcosplay contains more information about more events. Event announcements are screened first before posting, ensuring that event information is valid (unlike the other site who actually provided false information about future events that had to be corrected by the event organizers to their dismay). FACT: Filcosplay tackles more issues concerning cosplay including event logistics, judging system, costume construction, and yes, as Mikeabundo claims, issues concerning local cosplay groups and clubs. FACT: Filcosplay contains more experienced cosplayers who have written articles and tutorials (not only in their forums but also in circulated publications) as well as who answer questions concerning how to construct costumes using various types of material including rubber, foam, acrylic polimers, as well as cloth. FACT: Filcosplay members have acquired more awards, citations, and have in fact been tapped by more organizers (including a local cable channel) who wish to organize cosplays locally. Mikeabundo would confuse you and convince you that all this is "niche historical information", I beg to differ. Mikeabundo would rather you compare statistics that have absolutely nothing to do with each other such as Unique Hits versus Number of Members. I would rather you weigh the facts, and make your own conclusions. That is my last word on the matter. I agree that the reverts were ludicrous, and, as I have said my peace, I will allow Wikipedia to deal with further matters as they see fit. --Keroberos 08:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Could people please proofread entries and correct them before saving? The constant going back and fixing errors or arguments one at a time looks like edit spam. Thanks. Gentaur 21:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea: INCLUDE A LINK TO EACH OF THE TWO SITES! For God's sake, people. It's called "compromise". Each site seems to have its benefits and its downsides, and Filcosplay has been around longer and has a lot of street cred... the other site, well, apparently it's getting there, and is slightly more active forums-wise. Good then. They both have a reason for being here, and two ain't exactly much more than one, if both are active and notable for different reasons. Link them both and stop clogging up the discussion page with your rants. Jeez. 63.21.32.46 06:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

i am a member of both FilCosplay and PinoyCosplay and it is true that Mike Abundo has something against FilCosplay. more known around the Philippines is FilCosplay.tk, as PinoyCosplay came only after it. However, i do believe it should be brought to the attention here that many members of PinoyCosplay are moving/have moved to a different cosplayer site (run by cosplayers) due to a very big falling-out with Mike Abundo. the new website is found at: link removed due to blacklistiing just so you know. ^_^

mike abundo kaboom

Shivery timbers! What on earth have you done here mikeabundo? First of all, Cosplay in the Philippines only evolved only in Manila. The thing is its not as BIG as other cosplay events in the world. I can only name few cosplayers from Luzon like Joanna(Neitaro) from Pampanga and Keena from Cavite(both provinces are 40-50 kms away from Manila, oh I forgot they are girls maybe mike would add them to his photo collection), those from Visayas and Mindanao...I don't know it would be expensive if they go to Manila just to participate, but I know some Filipino-Americans who participate and for sure, they have deep pockets. Some Filcosplay members originated from Cosplayersworld CPM), a yahoo mailing list in 2001. They are the pioneers/founders of Filipino Cosplay. Members like eva_guy01, hazelmisao, yatenkou, officer_fujita et al. can be seen on both sites. Cosplay events from 2001 to present is archived on the ml's photo album. I know coz some of the organizers (e.g. Vincent Ternida) hang-out near to my place until dawn just to tackle their plans. They organized the FIRST Anime on Ice, Anime Summer Sports and Anime Prom night and what have you done mr abunda (haha) i mean abundo? You bought Filcosplay domain so you can takeover and do whatever you want. Who do you think you are? That puffhaired-tub of lard, Kim Jong Il? Well, both of you heavily wants attention. Are you lack of Social interaction? According to your wikipedia contributions you tried to create an article about YOURSELF (WP:vanity Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Abundo...good thing it was deleted. You are proud of you're heritage you even created an article about your mother Tisha_Abundo, Is you're mom aware that you are so BAAAAAD these days? Wikipedia is not FHM to shed some skin. I'll replace that pic with the "best" chii cosplayer ever (I hope everyone will agree). PS: Everyone in Filcosplay ridiculed mikeabundo check link removed due to blacklistiing Kamuixtv 07:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but.... um, what? Please be a little more succint, as I didn't understand much of what you said. I do understand though, that the talk page is not for bashing other members of the forum, and neither is this the appropriate place to host personal attacks, no matter how justified you feel you are in doing so. I do understand that there seem to be some issues that have yet to be resolved here, but these type of conflicts are better resolved in private. I have noticed that a lot of text in this site are surreptitiously linked to the user in question in some way, and I'm sure some of the higher-ups shall attend to removing vanity add-ons as soon as they can. I'll try to edit this myself if no one else will. Mirshariff 07:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is?

Umm, this seems like a stupid question, but what exactly do cosplays involve? There seems to be a lot of information in the article about the general culture surrounding the practice, but very little information on what, exactly, cosplay involves, which I would think that such an article should really have some information on... --220.237.63.43 13:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] cpvio

Pictures on this page are mostly CP vio. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The most eggregious picture, Francesca Dani, is now tagged (falesly, I believe) as promo. This article is not about Francesca Dani, and the picture must be removed. Can the first adminstrator reading this please remove the image? Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many external links

There's way too many external links on this article. Pretty much all of the Cosplayers links appear to be vanity pages, and some pretty poor ones at that. Can we just remove those?

The Community sites are a valuable resource, but they need more sorting and better descriptions. bz2 18:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the links to personal sites of cosplayers should be deleted. Just because they cosplay doesn't make them important to an article on cosplay. (The article for Actor doesn't have links to actors' personal/fan sites!) Also, see Wikipedia:External links for guidelines: "Wikipedia is not a web directory". --Eyeresist 02:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I have removed most of the links. If you know a good directory of cosplay groups and sites, please link to that instead. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Kusma (討論) 23:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the external links section, as it was a magnet for links that shouldn't be here by Wikipedia:External links. If somebody can create and maintain a clean external links section, please go ahead. Kusma (討論) 00:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I found a good directory and have added it. Fully agree that "Wikipedia is not a web directory." Lainey 19:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the external links are good right now, but each time I come back, someone reordered them and kicked out key sites of this community. Can we please have a discussion here which are good external links and which are not? Anime Adoru 00:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The page needs more pics

Anychance we can get more pics on this page? It seems sorely lacking in pictures to help bloster the article. --293.xx.xxx.xx 17:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, added two pics to the article. --moof 02:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of a Gallery maybe? Like a country-by-country retrospect of different ways each country does cosplay? --293.xx.xxx.xx 04:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, they're not really that different. --moof 20:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, I mean there is a line in the article itself that openly derides American cosplay as being "inaccurate" (Which one can construe if they link that statement with the Deathnote cosplay in the article.) at times. Plus i've seen some Russina and German cosplay that looks much better than some US cosplayers.--293.xx.xxx.xx 22:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kinky stuff

So, I added a little section on what Japanese people will really think you're into if you loudly proclaim your love for cosplay. Disbelievers are invited to stick コスプレ (性風俗用語) in their pipe and smoke it. Jpatokal 07:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove 'Jerry Polence' picture

Will one of the administrators kindly assist in removing the Jerry Polence Philippine picture in the article? I believe it shouldn't be there for the same reason the Francesca Dani pictures has been taken out, but user Mikeabundo persists in putting it back in (and based on what I read in this talkpage, this user has had issues with this article before). Until a general consensus regarding pictures has been agreed upon, let's put non-Japanese cosplay photos on the shelf for the moment, shall we?

The fact that the picture is also linked to asian-sirens.com, which I believe is an adult-oriented site, is not a very good basis for cosplay photos in general, either. 58.69.91.53 06:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lock/Ban request

Admins. Please ban Mikeabundo. The picture of Polence redirects to an adult site, it is also inappropriate to use that pic with this article. 210.23.182.42 15:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The discussion page is not a place for calling fellow users 'anonymous troll' and other similar names. I suggest that a refresher course on Wikipedia:Civility will do you a world of good. Cosplay and the Sex Industry was initially added to the article because the trade has been known to make use of Japanese costume fetishes to attract potential customers. That section may or may not be removed in the future pending article clean-up, but it is for the moment, fact. Perhaps some sources to cite how Japanese sex industries have made use of cosplay should be added for reference purposes? And unless you can cite similar sources regarding cosplay as a Philippine sex trade as well (I'm assuming this is what you're after, given that the photo did come from an adult site?), AND until an agreement can be reached regarding general cosplay photos for this article, that people refrain from adding pictures until further notice. Mirshariff 05:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, less have less (or ideally no) personal attacks, and more [[WP:|assumption of good faith]] all around. Wikipedia is not censored for minors, the question would be whether the photography is appropriate for the article, and whether it's linked in an appropriate way. I note that it's not a GFDL image, so the general preference would be to include it only if there's no free alternatives available. Alai 06:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Based on the number of available cosplay photos online, I think members can find a substantially good image to use without needing to resort to an adult site source, to avoid misinterpetation of the subject for the most part. Alternatives are wide and varied, but the article itself may wind up resembling a photomontage cum gallery if people begin adding any kind of cosplay photo they happen to fancy. Perhaps a reasonable limit of pictures for the article, or at least some prerequisites regarding what kind of cosplay photos can be added? Japanese cosplay photos only, or otherwise? Mirshariff 07:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The photo is not from an adult site. Mike Abundo 7:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I am getting the impression that what I write here is falling on deaf ears - or on blind eyes, as the case may be. If the photo does not belong to an adult site, then why is it linked to one? Similar links do not generally hold cosplayers in a positive light. I myself do not cosplay, but I am interested in the subject and have friends who do, so the thought of any of them being linked to a similar site is worrying. But I will refrain from commenting further, since the site has nothing to do with wikipedia. However, know that we should resolve this issue first BEFORE re-adding the photos in the article, as this seems to be the cause of the debate in the first place. Please do not post further links here to 'big up' your own - a term I quote from the earlier issue above - either. I will be reverting the page back, and I trust that this does not revert again until enough people have participated here to reach a compromise. Mirshariff 13:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, we do need something to illustrate International Cosplay. Mike Abundo 15:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree to Mirshariff's suggestion to place only Japanese Cosplay photos since among all countries, Japan is the country with the most appropriate credentials. Having one single pic or a set of pics to represent international cosplay may lead to lots of issues and debates whether the cosplayer is an appropriate representation of that country (at least Philippine-wise). To avoid such issues, its best not to have any pic posted at all, unless there is a majority agreement from the country's cosplay community (example the Philippine Cosplay Community) on having a specific cosplayer or set of cosplayers to represent them. So unless Mike Abundo has the complete backing of the Philippine Cosplay Community, or at least its majority, his entries and pics regarding cosplaying in the Philippines will always be subject to debate and controversy (as shown with his latest entry of a cosplay picture linking to an adult site). I'll let his past history with Wiki and the Philippine cosplay community speak for itself. eva_guy01 10:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Your approach may not be reflecting a worldwide view--GunnarRene 12:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The asian siren site that the image's description in the Cosplay article was linked to contained pornographic advertisements, the main content of the linked site was not pornographic. I don't think that relevant that is though. The link to the source site of the image belongs on the Image's own page between the summary section and the license information section anyway, not in the Cosplay article page. The section the image was placed in was the international cosplay section which would be an appropriate place for the a Philippine cosplay picture, but if the image, as the it's page suggests, is not actually available under a free license when free alternatives are available, then it should not be used. Jecowa 19:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It IS available under a free license. It says so on the pino cosplay site. (*) If you are worried that users accidentally gets adult ads, I have now changed the image description. Issue resolved. I say keep the image as there is no rule against having several free (as in liber) images in an article. --GunnarRene 12:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Provided, of course that it was shown on pino cosplay with the permission of the coyright owner. If you suspect that it was not correctly licensed, tag it as a possible copyright violation instead. --GunnarRene 12:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It appears that the model is actually the founder of the site with a creative commons license. We should encourage free content; unless somebody comes up with a better reason to remove, the picture stays.--GunnarRene 12:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
In the Philippine cosplay community, the girl in question is not particularly well-liked, and Mike Abundo is a known troll among Filipino cosplay groups, hence the rabid attempts of people to remove the afforementioned picture (the girl is heavily linked to Abundo). Many Filipino cosplayers feel that having a picture of her in wikipedia is not the best representative of Filipino cosplay, much less international cosplay. The argument that "why can she have her picture placed there instead of so-and-so" may also be another reason, as well as a "why is there a picture of a filipino cosplayer on the site, shouldn't it be a *insert nationality here* cosplayer instead", which was why some of the editors were recommending removing the picture altogether. If the picture is only going to provoke hostilities, then I believe it would be better to have it taken down until some consensus be reached. Personally, I feel that another picture that doesn't spark as much controversy be used instead, if people feel that a photo for the international cosplay section is vital. 125.212.69.152 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please keep this forum drama out of my Intarwebs. If you have problems with deceptive domain names, then take it up with the domain name registrars. All that matters here is that the image is free as in liber and adds value to the article. By all means, if you can make a better and free image, feel free to upload it to the commons and use it here. Lock/ban request thoroughly denied.--GunnarRene 11:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This may be a bit late, but did they have permission from the owner of the photo? I know the photographer had it removed from the pino cosplay shop before, just forgot the name of the photographer. Huzafan 14:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contents of former Meido article

"Meido" was suggested to be merged to this article as part of it's AfD. Here are the contents of that article so the appropriate parts can be included here:

[[Image:Emma full page.JPG|thumb|200px|right|Emma of the manga Emma is a more traditional, but atypical maid.]]Meido (メイド Japanese phonetic of maid) is also a jargon term amongst some otaku to refer to a type of stock female character in manga and anime. The characterization can have a cute or ecchi connotation depending on the writer. Most address their employers as goshujinsama(ご主人様) or ojousama（お嬢様） (especially the former. The latter is generally used for the employers' daughter).

The character differs from the traditional image of a typical housekeeper in being young, highly attractive, and usually wearing a maid outfit vaguely similar to a classic English or French design . In shōnen and seinen the outfit is almost universally fetishized: low-cut to show off the legs and chest, excessively colorful and/or frilly, and usually with white apron of variable length.

The types of characters who wear the costumes are often viewed dimly by fans as being an extreme take on the fetish combo of an 'ideal' housewife and an obedient servant, often with sexual connotations. In more wholesome terms, a fairly common device are meido harboring romantic feelings for their master or their wards (especially if they are younger).

Meido are often written in a comedic light, having employers with variably subtle embarrassing personality quirks which they put up with, having completely different personalities when "off the clock", or reprimanding their masters like children.

Many bishojo shows which contain scenes of characters in large households or doing spring cleaning inevitably produce art with the characters in these sorts of outfits.

[edit] Maid cafe

Wikipe-tan in a maid outfit
Wikipe-tan in a maid outfit
Main article: Cosplay restaurant

Since around 2000, cafes called "maid cafe" have opened in Akihabara, Tokyo. In maid cafes, typical manga-style maids serve tea and cakes. When a guest comes to the cafe, maids say "Welcome home, Master" even if it is the guest's first time there, because the maids play the role of maids belonging to the guest's mansion. Similarly, they say "Have a nice day, Master" when the guest leaves.

Maid cafes have become popular, and spread to other cities in Japan, and also in South Korea and Taiwan.

[edit] Maid fashion

The maid cafe boom has become such a major trend in Japan that the costume is now part of the Tokyo streetstyle fashion.Tokyo Maid goes streetstyle

[edit] Examples

Mahoro Andō (of Mahoromatic)
one of the most famous meido characters in anime fandom. Despite being heavily fanserviced by Gainax, she has an ironic hatred of perverted imagery
Emma (of Victorian Romance Emma)
attractive meido style character from a manga and anime aimed at older women, which may explain her much less fetishtic and mundane design.
He Is My Master
a gag manga and anime poking fun at various otaku fetishes, predominantly maids, with moderate lolicon material.
Hanaukyo Maid Tai
lies at the extreme end of the spectrum, full embracing the fetish in a comedic manner, and features scores of maids who work for the household (although most do not do any conventional housework).
Ebichu the Hamster in the anime of the same name
fufills the same role as a maid, complete with sychopantic devotion and a completely lack of tact concerning her owner's privacy.
Roberta (of Black Lagoon)
another warrior-maid character, similar to Mahoro. Despite appearing to possess physically unmatched power, she devotes herself completely to the service and admonishments of a young boy. In the meido fanservice tradition, whenever she begins fighting, the garters under her frilly maid outfit become apparent.
May (of Hand Maid May)
4-inch robot girl designed to help out around the house. She was accidentally ordered by Satome Kazuya, a student at the prestigious Osza no Mizu Industries University, when Satome's rival tries to sabotage his computer with a computer virus. Being a mere 4-inch robot girl, May ends up in a lot of comical scenarios with her master.

[edit] See also

20:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cosplay vs. Costuming

I've been a costumer for over 30 years and have never referred to myself or my fellow costumers as "cosplayers". As far as I'm aware Cosplay is specifically about Japanese anime/manga only. I certainly don't think the cite of Forrest J. Ackerman should be in there especially as the word didn't even exist at the time it refers to. I'm pretty sure that the World SF Convention distinguishes between Cosplay and Costuming ~ Brother William 07:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV and OR

As well written as this article is, barely any of the content fits WP standards... Fortunately, this is a perfect candidate for transfer to the anime wikia. Blueaster 01:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


sigh.... dumping some junk here Blueaster 20:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Many cosplayers jokingly refer to Halloween as "National Cosplay Day".

Judging is divided by two categories, craftsmanship and presentation. Craftsmanship is how well the costume is made, effort, originality and scope of the costume comes into play. Presentation accounts of how well the costume is presented. Regardless of how the costume is made, presentation is more about how the costume is used. ie. a costume consisting of t-shirt and jeans can easily defeat a 2,000-dollar Victorian style dress, simply by being in a comedy routine. Winners of both contests often receive prizes such as gift cards, trophies, and anime DVDs.

[edit] Sources

I can't believe what this page says, because there are no sources. People actually have questions about where this word comes from, and this kind of long unsourced material on a popular cultural phenomenom is exactly what wikipedia does so much of, but which it can do much better XinJeisan 07:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing Meaning of "Cosplay"

Whatever the origin of the word "cosplay" might be, I think this word has a strong or exclusively sexual connotation in Japan today. From my personal experience, the costumed people in Yoyogi park don't react well to being called "cosplay"ers. And proclaiming oneself interested in "cosplay" would only invite strange looks and awkward silences. Which is to say, when speaking Japanese people automatically assume you're talking about costume fetishism. Maybe the word was more benign in the 90s, and foreign anime fans have been slow picking up the change in meaning? Or maybe the way fanboys use "cosplay" has never squared with the Japanese usage. I'm not sure. At any rate, I'd say this article needs a big overhaul clearly differentiating between the English/historical usage and the current Japanese usage (done by someone more expert than myself). That is, unless you're trying to make wikipedia readers embarass themselves by running around Japan proclaiming their love of costume kink. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.176.10.218 (talk)

I think you spend too much time with the wrong crowd. ;) First, saying cosplay has a strong sexual connotation is like saying that "swimsuits" has one too. I mean if someone says "I love woman/man dressed in swimsuits.", then there is a strong sexual connotation, but it doesn't mean swimsuits by itself has a strong connotation. It's the way words are used that causes it rather than other way around. Second, Japanese people, in general, prefer general compliments rather than being pointed out what they are doing. You caused discomfort because you went to them and called them "cosplayers" instead of complementing for how well their costumes are made and where you can buy their costumes, or better yet, not speaking to them at all and only taking casual glances. Those cosplayers aren't there to be interviewed and speaking to them without having existing friendship is like going to the Disneyland and asking its guides if they like their job. When speaking to a Japanese, start a conversation with a general topic and don't start a conversation with a specific topic.--Revth 06:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See Also

Removed Gothic Lolita as a linking page as I feel this is misleading and will only encourage people to incorrectly refer to lolita as cosplay.

Angelicpretty (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't misleading. The "See also" section in articles isn't intended for linking articles about synonymous subjects. It's for linking articles about related subjects. If you read the article, you'll find that Gothic Lolita happens to be related to cosplay (and the article itself says so) as something that originated in Japan and is often seen at anime and manga conventions. I am restoring the link. =Axlq (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cosplaying by Notable Persons and other needless promotion...

Alright, here's my opinion on this:

The "Cosplaying by Notable Persons" section should *ONLY* include people who are notable outside of cosplay. As opposed to people who are subjectively notable just BECAUSE of cosplay. Otherwise the above heading just makes no sense.

In other words, the former President of Taiwan and some of the voice actors would certainly fit the bill here. Most passed notability guidelines to warrant their own Wiki articles. Adella, G-Chan, FranDan, PL, et all, would not. Partially this is because their notability a subject of debate. More importantly though, I could see the potential for abuse here by people trying to "highlight" their favorite cosplayers. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. The series of ping-pong edits being done to this article involving FranDan and certain cosplayers of Filipino ethnicity is shameful. Cosplay already has its fair share of drama, and it doesn't need to be dumped on Wikipedia. Take that crap to 4chan, CosplayFucks, or Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Secondly, I don't see the point in singling out Anime Boston, Anime North, and Otakon to the exclusion other (in some cases, LARGER) cons as an example of cosplay receiving more attention in North America. No convention exists in a vacuum. I understand they were merely cited as examples, but it's done to the exclusion of MANY other large cons like Anime Expo and A-Kon. I would suggest it merely reference "larger conventions" as an acceptable NPOV alternative.

YMMV.

Kensuke Aida (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Link Spam

I notice that Anime Adoru's main contribution to this article seems to be to repeatedly add Cos or Not back to the article despite MANY other editors removing it as LinkSpam. I'm going to call foul and suspect involvement in the site. Enough independent editors have removed this link for me to think it's not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.2.35 (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Anime Adoru does seem to keep adding this back.--81.108.116.105 (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I asked for a discussion above, see Related Links Discussion, but we can discuss this here as well. It is simple: I think there are three main community sites, cosplay.com, cosspace.com, and cosornot.com. I added cosornot.com because I like and I think it belongs in the related links section, along with cosspace.com, which is also missing. I simply undid the removal of cosornot.com because it was a good link and so I asked for the discussion repeatedly. So lets hope we can have this here. Anime Adoru (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
So, again, I think the three mail related links are cosplay.com, cosspace.com, and cosornot.com. Opinions? How to go about this? Anime Adoru (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think cosplay.com is the only major community site, I don't think cosornot or cosspace are anywhere near as big or as important. Ultimately this is an encyclopedia and community links are not essential to the article. Discussion or not I think you should leave it to other people to add in links to these sites because your only contribution to this article and wikipedia in general is to add in external links which is not good form. To avoid any accusations of bias I think you should leave other editors to add these links in if they're appropriate. 62.49.2.35 (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem seems to be the personal opinion. I'm a user of all three sites and while there are differences in size, I consider them all major. I don't think it is fair to exclude me specifically from this contribution just because I got stuck/annoyed about it. Why is my opinion less valuable than others? I'd rather see objective criteria if you want to remove my contributions. Anime Adoru (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) This has nothing to do with personal opinion, it has to do with policy. See Wikipedia:External links. Community / social networking / forum / blog sites do not belong in Wikipedia articles. Exceptions exist when the article is about the forum itself or if the article is a biography of a person who runs a blog. If you continue to add community sites, they will continue to be deleted. =Axlq

If this is so, you should remove cosplay.com, which is a commercial community site. I think it is a pity not to allow community sites. Anime Adoru (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll note that your contributions to Wikipedia have predominantly consisted of adding external links, which leads me and others to suspect that you have a conflict of interest. If that is the case, it's up to the community to decide if the links belong. I don't see your links as enhancing the information in the articles, sorry. =Axlq (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This was my first and admittedly only contribution. I'm generally good with computers, but my friend who was trying to teach me Wikipedia said I'd be in for a lot of pain if I add external links. Seems like he was right. Still, I read about "assume good faith" so I think it is pretty mean to suggest I have a conflict of interest and to discount my opinion based on this. I don't, I just like these sites and suspect that most folks who come here do so too.Anime Adoru (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Cosplay.com is much more than a discussion forum. However, I agree, its value is marginal to the article, and I wouldn't oppose deleting it. The only things I see that make it valuable to this article are that it provides comprehensive worldwide schedules and news about conventions in multiple languages. It's a bit too much of a community forum / photo blog for my taste, though. In any case, Wikipedia is not an indiscrimminate collection of links, so there is no need to add links to yet more of these sites.
I'll take your word that you have no conflict of interest. I've observed editors in the past with conflicts of interest, and their contributions to Wikipedia focus on adding external links to articles, not in actually improving articles. I apologize if I was mistaken about recognizing a similar pattern in your edits. =Axlq (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed the Renaissance Festival picture

I removed a picture of "participants at the Bristol Renaissance Festival for two reasons. First, the picture was actually depicting two of the professional actors employed as street characters at the festival, which places them outside of the realm of cosplay in general. Secondly, many if not most Festival patrons who dress up participate in the overall fantasy of the festival being set in the Renaissance -- in effect playing a role and often participating in in-character entertaining of guests of the festival. Typically they are not depicting a known fictional character, and much if not most of the time it is less about the costume and more about the acting or roleplaying. As the article does not touch on Renaissance Festivals or other such activities (the SCA, LARPing, Civil or Revolutionary War recreations or the like) the picture was out of place in the article. --Eric Burns (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Why is it so wrong for others to link to their cosplays? Uzumaki Naruto (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That would depend on the notability of that website. ~ Brother William (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh! Okay, thanks. ^^ かぜかおる (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should we remove Cosplaylocator from external link?

I think this link is a spam (Vinnyv (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)).