Talk:Kigurumi/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

User:Zanimum just reverted all of the changes made by 219.17.48.130 without any comment and marked it as a minor edit. It wasn't minor, and seems to have removed some salient facts (though I don't know the terms well enough to tell if they're true facts myself), so I'm going to ask for some more details here. Zanimum, what was your specific objection to the changes made by 219.17.48.130? Bryan 00:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents

new edit

hello, I did not want to go into too much depth about something which is basically just "animal suits"(!!) but i tried to include some information from japanese wikipedia about fetishism in "animegao" style kigurumi- without focusing on it (it IS very very minor, not a major hobby!) and also to mention american characters at disney who are also kigurumi. this way maybe reader will see it is basically a japanese word for something a little familiar, not a hobby completely specific to japan. bryan, if you see this, i think you can format the english etc. better than me, so i hope you can make it look a little nicer!

this comment was from user 219.17.48.xxx by the way!

The Kigurumi article

Zanimum, for some time now you've been repeatedly adding multiple animegao images to the Kigurumi article and changing the article's text to suggest that Kigurumi is primarily or entirely about dressing up as anime characters, and anonymous user 219.17.48.xxx has been amending it back to say that Kigurumi is a larger genre that also includes other types of costumes. Although I admittedly have no knowledge of this hobby myself, and a very cursory Google search for "Kigurumi" returned many pages of examples of animegao and only one page with more generic sorts of costumes, I am nevertheless tending to take the anonymous user's side in this dispute if only because you're refusing to respond to my requests for clarification in any way. You're not even putting anything informative in the edit summaries. Could you please address some of the anonymous user's points on Talk:Kigurumi rather than engaging in a silent slow-motion edit war? Bryan 02:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not putting anything informative into the edit summaries? In the summary, I was imply that until we have permission to use the other style of kigurumi, there's no harm whatsoever with the pictures we have. I am in no way saying there isn't the other area of the hobby, but I'm just letting reader see a cross-section of one area. -- user:zanimum
The edit summary is the small text field immediately below the main article-editing field, with the link "Edit summary" right beside it. Here are all of the edits you've made to Kigurumi, with the edit summaries you made for each of them listed beside it (the "m" indicates an edit marked as minor):
  1. (cur) (last) 19:14, 27 Dec 2004 Zanimum m (Reverted edits by 219.17.48.202 to last version by Zanimum)
  2. (cur) (last) 18:53, 13 Dec 2004 Zanimum
  3. (cur) (last) 15:58, 20 Sep 2004 Zanimum m
  4. (cur) (last) 18:35, 22 Jul 2004 Zanimum
  5. (cur) (last) 18:32, 22 Jul 2004 Zanimum
  6. (cur) (last) 06:41, 10 Jun 2004 Zanimum m
  7. (cur) (last) 07:40, 5 May 2004 Zanimum m
  8. (cur) (last) 09:23, 3 May 2004 Zanimum m
  9. (cur) (last) 09:22, 3 May 2004 Zanimum
  10. (cur) (last) 07:44, 30 Apr 2004 Zanimum
  11. (cur) (last) 07:43, 30 Apr 2004 Zanimum
In other words, out of 11 edits you've given an edit summary for only one of them, and that one edit summary was automatically generated by the auto-revert function and so gives no information about why you reverted. Now, I am not perfect in this regard, but it is a guideline of Wikipedia that you should provide some sort of summary of every edit you do to allow people to tell at a glance what's going on. It's especially useful when you're engaged in a dispute, as you currently are with 219.17.48 and I, to explain your reasoning for making certain edits.
Anyway, with regard to the images you've been adding, the harm is that although Animegao is only a part of Kigurumi (apparently) you're trying to have the article display four images of Animegao costumes without having any images of the other types. This gives a skewed view of Kigurumi, implying that it's primarily or even solely about the Animegao costumes. Furthermore, you've edited the text to reflect a similar outlook; take for example this edit from20 Sep 2004. Now, I have no idea offhand whether you or 219.17 is correct here, but since 219.17.48 is at least explaining why he's making these changes while you haven't said a single word about your own until now I've had little choice but to believe 219.17.48.
I would also suggest that whether Kigurumi is solely about Animegao or whether it includes both Animegao and animal costumes, you only really need one or two image of an Animegao costume to illustrate what an Animegao costume is all about. Wikipedia is not an image gallery, the images we put into articles should be there simply to facilitate understanding or to illustrate the subject of the article. Four images of the same thing in a 2.8-kilobyte-long article seems excessive to me. Bryan 03:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Japan user 219.17 here
Hello Zamium and Bryan, thanks for discussing this article. Here is some useful information for you I hope. Firstly, Bryan, you searched for "kigurumi" in English- meaning your results would be biased towards the American interpretation of Kigurumi, where they often seem to confuse it with Anime-style masked characters. Try a search for きぐるみ in Japanese, and you will get a different result. To be fair to Zamium, some results surely will include masked "doller" characters, and this is a part of the definition. But only a part.
Also Zamium, as you also edit on the "cosplay" page please don't think I have anything against you personally- I just think some people outside my country have the misinformed idea about the state of cosplay in Japan. The article on "Dollers" is still empty and perhaps that would be a better place to concentrate upon that hobby, especially as it exists in America.. Then on the cosplay page I think we should remove the doller picture, and perhaps on the Kigurumi page find a picture of a Pokemon/etc character to give better balance. However, the article for Kigurumi as it is now seems pretty good and the picture of the character in red seems reasonable, I sometimes see cosplayers like that. I strongly disagreed with including all those pictures of "naru" (is that from Love Hina? the name itself is not clear to non-otaku) which were very bad representations of cosplay in general and not even particularly good image of mask-style Kigurumi. At the events I go to around Japan, most masked layers play as characters with quite cute and frilly costumes like card captor Sakura or maid-style characters. "race queen" style is very rare in public and is more common as a private hobby.
How could I go about adding pictures of- for example- a famous game or anime character to "cosplay" and perhaps a beast-style character to "kigurumi"?
Thanks for reading, J-nerd.


While I'm a bit lat to this discussion, looking up 着ぐるみ with the 着 on Japanese search engines brings up a combination of human-type and animal-type web sites. Looking up きぐるみ, without the 着, brings up mainly animal-types. It's a little difference but cutting and pasting the Japanese from main article will net you both types so I think both should both should be given equal space in the article. --Z026445 12:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


Zanimum, it's not the total number of pixels used by the four pictures that's "overwhelming", it's the fact that there are four pictures of one small subset of Kigurumi compared to none of any of the other types of Kigurumi. Perhaps you could consider starting the doller article, where this kind of focus would be more appropriate? Bryan 16:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Updated Article

Jan 29, 2004 Upadated the article, because it emphasized too much on the Fetish aspect of hobbiest cosplay. And even though Fetish may be a part of our community, and merely painting it fetish would be a somewhat skewed picture of the group at large. --Kigurumifan 08:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I recall a movie where a Kigurumi mask appeared

I don't know if it was The Cell or another film, but I distinctly recall seeing a woman - in what may have been a dream sequence - wearing a Kigurumi mask. Anyone else recall something of this sort? 206.114.20.121 19:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The article looks grotesque

Let's consider the most common places where kigurumi are used in Japan:

  • Children's shows
  • Theme parks (Disneyland, ocean parks, zoos, Sanrio Puroland)
  • Public events featuring mascots-come-to-life (malls, PR events, PSAs)
  • Baseball games
  • Stage shows featuring children's show/anime/superhero characters
  • Comedians dressing up in a very cumbersome costume that is kigurumi

The photos in the article make it look like kigurumi is a perverted fetish. Reading the text does not helpl much, as there's very little to read. In fact, there are only two paragraphs, and the second paragraph is entirely about a fetish in a fan community. I wouldn't say that professional kigurumi necessarily has higher prestege than fan activity, but I can comfortably say that professional kigurumi of the kind that the general public first thinks of (as listed above) is indeed general kigurumi.

I only take offense knowing the amount of physical labor and exhaustion involved in acting inside a kigurumi. It doesn't amuse me when I personally know people who do kigurumi professionally.

I understand how this article comes to be. There are far more fans and those with a fetish contributing to Wikipedia in general. Professionals seldom have the interest or need to make a contribution. Just tell me you worked at Seaworld in a Shamu suit for at least one entire summer before you can rebut with any hint of offense back.

This needs cleaning up

The photographs are not kigurumi at all, they should be changed. It would be like exclusively posting images of propellor driven aircraft in an article about jets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick R.W.A. R. (talk • contribs)

I agree. Even if Animegao is a subdivision of Kigurumi, the Animegao photographs aren't really representative of Kigurumi as a whole. I mean, it says at the beginning "Kigurumi is the Japanese name for costumed animal characters" and the photographs are clearly not animal characters. If someone can get at least one picture of an animal character, that would be nice. -kotra 23:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the Disguise Pajama~!?

Hey guys~! I jumped on in here from editing a ton of other Japanese fashion style tribes and was shocked to see pictures of animegao instead of Kigurumi! I do not know much about animegao in Japanese cosplay, but animegao is NOT the best example for kigurumi!!! In fact, it is a very, VERY tiny portion of the fashion (it only fits in the 'umbrella category' of Kigurumi, but it's really better in its own section. Aside from commercial characters for businesses and entertainment, it's a popular street fashion and silly thing to wear: disguise pajama, or kigurumin! But I see nothing about this in the article! It's all animegao! Put that in animegao, not kigurumi! I will try to rewrite this when I have free time. Accelagirl 07:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support here. I recall a bear pyjama in Serial Experiments Lain that fits the description. However the whole thing would be better if supported by references. So if there's any related article, shop or other source, please state it. It would help to make the article more professional. --StalkerAT 08:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a kigurumi/disuise pajama shop in Tokyo called "Sleeper's": [1].

Photograph

Would an image such as http://gyotti.ddo.jp/~yuki/gallery/20050313/P3130120.JPG be best suited to this page? It has 2 examples of Kigurumi, and one of Animegao in a single photograph. Turtleheart 14:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That looks good! What are the copyright restrictions for it? We'll need to know who owns the copyright for it (that's usually the person who took the picture) and if they have any usage restrictions. -kotra 08:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Email has been sent. --StalkerAT 09:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay recieved. Uploaded to Commons. Awaiting final permission. --StalkerAT 21:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)