Talk:OS-tan/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 2

| Archive 3 →

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.

What's the point

What's the point where you can talk about some picture but you are unable to show it. Also limiting only for a few os, showing a serious lack of neutrality or simply the lack of knownedge.

A incomplete entry is too good like a fake entry.

This entry currently lack :

-The rest of the windows operating system. -Linux distros. -Firefox (it's not a os but still is part of the os-tan). -Norton Antivirus. (i'm not sure about this). -Mac OSX.

The other details it that os-tan are just a fantasy and unruly design just for fun, the design IS NOT MANDATORY where not written rule exist or is globally accepted and, in fact in some cases the design can be completely different (for example the os-tan xp black design).

--Magallanes 10:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There used to be a list of all known OS-tans, however, the article was deleted as it was unencyclopedic. However, as a compromise the main article is allowed to maintain a short list of examples of the most recognizable OS-tans. --Darkstar949 05:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use issues

I am not too familiar with fair use policies, nor am I familiar with the sources of the images on this pages. However, the image for os-tan Windows 2000 has been nominated for deletion because of its lack of a fair use rationale. I'm not sure why its the only one listed for deletion. I would think that the fair use rationale for the big image at the top would apply to all the individual os-tan images on this page as well. Would someone who knows what they are doing please add an appropriate rationale for each of the images of individual os-tans that are being used under fair-use? Nimrand 20:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just an image like the Windows logos, So if I were to post a logo of Windows 2000 on there. Look, I'm breaking the law, Someone nominate that image for deletion, It violates fair usage rights. Yeah right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.61.209 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 16 March 2007

It's a bit more complicated than that - plus the Windows 2000 logo is allowable in Wikipedia in the context of it being a logo for a particular product that has an article entry. The 2k-tan was nominated as part of a sweep because the original uploaded didn't have any supporting fair-use rational for it or notes as to where it came from, however, the image was kept and rational has been provided so it's a non-issue. --Darkstar949 17:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright law is clear in this matter, windows logo (without modification) cannot be used in any means without prior conscent of Microsoft Corporation (for example this logo is ILLEGAL to use

) . But for a non-direct display such a t-shirt it's allowed where you are showing the whole picture, not only the logo.

What the hell, sexual fetish references?

I don't know where this originated, but whatever sexual fetish commonly assigned to OS-tans are redundant in an encyclopedic article describing them. What sexual fantasies some artists apply to these characters has nothing to do with the subject. 2k-tan into futanari? What do these characters have to do with futanari? I, and I would assume many others, would view the mention of such a fetish or condition unfitting for any article that has no basis in describing anything directly linked to it. They are alsa highly POV-based claims, existing only in the fantasy of some artists or communities dedicated to the OS-tans. --Ifrit 23:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Os-tan are a lot of this kind of fetish fantasy. It's the same of talk about playboy magazine but don't mention the sex part. --Magallanes 10:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Vista-tan, does she exist yet?

Google says there're a whole bunch of designs floating around for her, link here. http://darkdiamond.net/features/tuesday-tans-celebrate-vista-with-vista-tan/ Should we wait to update the article until a "finalized" version is selected?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.38.205 (talk) 22:28, 2 March, 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, The general design thats been decided on by the artists is the girl in the red and white sailor fuku, Its still too early to tell anyways.

Personally, I prefer the red and white design over the green one.--Theredstarswl 02:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Currently are different styles, even a Longhorn vista me-tan. --Magallanes 10:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

how about create new article that talk about vista? are vista is a girl/boy with a long horn? a little girl or what?? --Landavia 07:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A new article for Vista-tan would likely be put up for deletion very quickly. Last time I checked the style still needed to be finalized and as such we should wait until it is finalized before discussing placing her in the list of notable OS-tans. --Darkstar949 14:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Other Microsoft and Non-Microsoft Operating Systems

Microsoft Vienna is missing as well as their Microkernel OS Singularity currently a research project at Microsoft. Also Microsoft Xenix is missing.

They should also have a Linux one and a BSD and a MacOS & OSX one. There are other operating systems but they're less important or used, a Solaris one could be added for good measure. While there are many more *nixes old depreciated ones aren't worth adding.

As you can see there's a lot of *nixes

Comments from article

I have been working on tighting up the artile which means lots of editing - what follows are some comments that I removed from it:
"Previous versions of this article claimed one story or the other as fact, and also stated that Futaba Channel and 2chan were independent sources each credited with the origin. Checking of facts and reference-gathering needs to be done, I'm just editing. I believe part of the futaba/2channel confusion comes from the fact that English speakers usually call Futaba Channel 2chan, because futaba's internet address is 2chan.net. It is however recognized to be separate from 2ch.net, which is what Japanese refer to as 2channel. Therefore, someone talking about 2chan really means futaba chan and not 2channel" --Darkstar949 16:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sweeping Revisions

As apparent from the article, it has undergone sweeping revisions. Please do not revert past the sweeping revisions, the majority of the original information is still in the article only now tightened up a bit with references. If significant changes are needed please discuss them before we start an edit war. --Darkstar949 12:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Revision to March 5, 2007

Why, Because this article has been butchered, Severel refrences were deleted, Pictures that were being used were removed, and Netrunners conflicts have been removed making it seem like it didn't happen. --SU182 16:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A few things. First, which references are you referring too? All of the external links are still in place and links in the article were either irrelevant to the content of the article (a listing of the songs in Troubled Windows does not need to be in an article about OS-tans) or were revised to inline citations which still appear at the bottom of the page. Second, one of the pictures that were removed was a non-sourced image has been deleted off of the Wikipedia server (95-tan) and the other is not an accurate representation of 98-tan. I actually have some of the original images from the List of OS-tans article that I am going to try and upload tonight under fair use rational. Thus the images are a non-issue. Finally, the Netrunner information has actually been expanded a bit - the only part dropped was about the one doujin's story line. The Futaba Society versus Deja Vu issue was dropped because I can't find any information in relation to it and the last update according to the article was in 2004, thus some form of a source would be needed for Deja Vu to be added back in. --Darkstar949 17:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well for one, Under history parts of the text seemed to be removed.

The concept is reported to have begun as a personification of the common perception of Windows Me as unstable and prone to frequent crashes. Discussions on Futaba Channel likened this to the stereotype of a fickle, troublesome girl. This personification expanded, with the creation of Me-tan (dated to August 6, 2003) followed by the other characters. A large collection of these images can be found here. Some of the comics have been translated by readers on 4chan and idlechan. They have been archived at Trouble Windows Translations, along with the Japanese counterparts. There also exists a Macromedia Flash Animation showing a possible intro to an imaginary anime show, Troubled Windows (とらぶる・うぃんどうず Toraburu Windouzu). It features interactivity, where the viewer can click to cause different visuals in the animation. A fansub of this has been created, and can be found here. The fansub, however, is a video file, and is not interactive. The music is Sakuranbo Kiss ~Bakuhatsu da mo~n~ (さくらんぼキッス～爆発だも～ん～; translates to "Cherry Kiss ~it's an explosion mo~n~"), by KOTOKO, which was originally the opening theme from a visual novel known as Colorful Kiss (カラフルキッス～12コの胸キュン!～), released by GIGA. An ending theme called OS-Pittan also exists. The music is Futari no Xenopittan (ふたりのぜのぴったん), a remix version of Futari no Mojipittan, a song from the PS2 word puzzle game Mojipittan. The song was made for a game based on Mojipittan called Xenopittan, which features characters and terminology from the PlayStation 2 game Xenosaga. It is found on a fan disc for Xenosaga, known as Xenosaga Freaks. It can be heard at the end of the medley found here. The song was sung by voice actresses Ai Maeda (who voiced Shion Uzuki in Xenosaga), Suzuki Mariko (who voiced KOS-MOS in the same game), and Shishido Rumi (who voiced MOMO in the same game). Both flash files can be viewed here. Also, as a satire, Bill Gates was mentioned in the credit of this hypothetical anime (after about 50 seconds). There also exists a Photoshop-modified picture, mimicking news of a new animation release in a Japanese magazine. Mac OS X, Linux, and Linspire girls have also shown up on the Internet, although some non-OS male characters exist for programs and hardware. Norton AntiVirus is usually portrayed as a creepy looking, possibly lecherous old doctor. Predating all of this is Toy's iMac Girl, the feature of a series of wallpapers first appearing between August 1998 and March 1999.

For one, The following text seems to be added under the following sections.

For Windows XP

you added "(pronounced [homeko], not [ˈhoʊmko])"
you added "She is characterized as a fujoshi and yaoi doujinshi artist who has an unhealthy fascination *with her gender-confused brother Homeo (/homeo/)."
You also replaced "rice bowl" with "donburi"

For Windows 2000

You removed "operating system" from the sentence
You replaced "alluding to the popular opinion" with "This is thought to reflect the opinion"
You removed

She is characterized as the "dependable woman" among the OS-tans and one of the domain controllers

You added

in stories

You replaced "The blue in the picture is close to the default Windows 2000 desktop colour. 2k-tan is often associated with Futanari, and is sometimes depicted as being one herself." with "The particular shade of blue used in most drawings is similar to the default Windows 2000 desktop color."

For Windows ME

You replaced "The more cutesy personification of the much maligned and infamously unreliable Windows Me OS, ME-tan's appearance rarely varies and was the first OS-tan created, by the one now called "ME-aki". She is instantly recognizable; she has green hair in long pigtails and wears a maid outfit with a" with "The design of ME-tan, the personification of Windows Me, is very much in line with the Japanese concept of kawaii or cuteness. Her design has changed little from the artist's original designs [6] and is depicted with green hair in long pigtails wearing a maid outfit with a".
You replaced "ME-tan is a hard worker and always wants to help her master (Toshiaki), but predictably fails at everything she tries to do" with "While she is considered to be a hard worker, comics often depict her failing at anything she tries to do".
You removed "(see here)."

For Windows 98 & 98SE

Here's the original

Many variations exist; however, the most common is a pair of young girls. The First Edition of 98 has a white and blue uniform, a navy blue hair with a clip shaped like "98", and has a windows logo as part of a necktie, she is also somtimes seen as a futanari (female with male genitals). The 98 Second Edition mascot normally has grey-blue hair and a green sailor school uniform with the letters SE on the front, and her most commonly used phrase is "all dicks seriously need to die". Two early versions that continue to be used alongside the girls are a pair of stick-limbed snack-boxes with a face and version number drawn in crayon, based on the "Vulcan 300" toy that appeared in the anime series Konjiki no Gash Bell!!. In the very early days before the designs of the primary OS-tans had settled, generic stick-limbed boxes were often used as placeholders; there had been instances of small DOS and Windows 3.11 boxes before other designs gained popularity. Both girls now make regular use of these as "mechanical suits." The "mech-box" used by 98 is blue in colour, and likewise the 98SE mech-box has a green theme. The mechs are sometimes shown as guardians or friends to the 98-tans, otherwise the two girls can be seated inside them as pilots. The box sizes can vary, ranging from doll-like when carried by the girls to taller than an adult when they ride inside them. While both are fairly shy girls, 98SE is seen hiding in her mech-box a lot more often.

And here's your altered version.

While many variations exist the most common depiction of the Windows 98 operating systems is a pair of young girls. The OS Girl representative of the original release of Windows 98 is shown in a white and blue uniform that includes the Windows logo as part of a neck tie, navy blue hair, and a "98" hair clip. The Windows 98 Second Edition OS Girl is similar in appearance, but wears a green sailor school uniform with the letters "SE" on the front. Two early representations that are also seen are a pair of stick-limbed Pocky boxes with a face and version number drawn in crayon, a reference to the Konjiki no Gash Bell!! anime series. These early representations are still used in stories as a mecha piloted by the girls, dolls carried by the girls, or sometimes even as hiding places for them.

For Windows 95

You replaced "95, being an older version of "modern" Windows," with "As 95 is considered to be the oldest of the modern 32-bit Windows operating systems, it"
You deleted "typically depicted as"
You replaced "costume" with "outfit"
You replaced "cultural background" with "refrence"
You deleted "is seen there"
You replaced "Her most common activities are" with "She is typcially depicted as engaged in"
You deleted "One comic strip shows her talking to other OS-tans about beating up MacOS; and 95 is commonly portrayed with an overwhelming hatred of the Macintosh OS-Tans, particularly her bitter rival MacOS-tan.

Due to Windows 95's lack of support for Unicode, several OS-tan four-panel comics have been made portraying other OS-tans encouraging 95-tan to "think in Russian!" and 95-tan's inability to internalize the Russian language enough to accomplish this." You moved "Additionally, the pattern of her kimono is based on the file "hana256.bmp", which was used as a desktop wallpaper pattern in the Japanese version of Windows", Next to the word Japan.

For Refrences and In-Jokes

You added "Some of these are subtle references that require an intimate knowledge of Japanese culture, while others are frequently appearing themes."
You inverted "Scallion" and "Breast Size, Hunger, and Memory"

For Scallion

Here's the original version.

Often the Windows girls are seen carrying scallions. This is a pun: a popular Japanese firewall program (NEGiES) sounds like the Japanese word for "scallion" (negi) so the OS-tan carry scallions around as shields or weapons. A scallion is also the icon used for the firewall itself.

Here's your butchered version

Another common theme are the OS Girls carrying scallions and using them either as shields or as a weapon. This is a pun in reference to the popular Japanese firewall program NEGiES for which has a pronunciation similar to the Japanese word for "scallion" (negi), which also uses a scallion as an application icon [8].

For Breast Size, Hunger, and Memory

Here's the original version.

It has been suggested from time to time, that the breast sizes of the individual OS-tans represent their RAM requirements. Because Windows XP is considered a memory hog due to its increased resource consumption, XP-tan is incredibly well endowed (and she has no qualms about getting "upgraded" from time to time). 2K-tan normally rates as a close second, whereas the DOS pair are at the other end of the spectrum. Another theory states that the breast size of an OS-tan represents the overall "fanciness" of their graphical user interface. Since XP was designed with 'bells and whistles', she has the largest breasts, but DOS, being no more than a command prompt, is at the other extreme. An alternate method of displaying memory or resource requirements in general is through the character's appetite. XP is often seen eating ridiculous amounts of food, sometimes to the point of obesity.

Here's the butchered version.

It has been suggested from time to time that the breast sizes of the individual OS-tans can be representative of either their represent their RAM requirements, or the fanciness of their graphical user interface, although it should be noted that more complex user interfaces typically require more system resources to run. In practice, XP-tan is typically depicted as being well endowed while at the other end of the scale are the OS Girls representatives of DOS. Additionally, stories will sometimes include a reference to XP-tan or 2K-tan receiving an upgrade to their resources, usually followed by an increase in breast size.

For Movement against Netrunner

Here's the original version

Netrunner, a monthly computer magazine in Japan, introduced an image board browsing software named "Berry" in one issue. "Berry" created a surge of traffic to Futaba, as well as many inexperienced users who knew nothing about the rules and decorum of Futaba. This troubled, but did not entirely anger, Futaba users. However, the May 2004 issue of Netrunner was bundled with a set of trading cards, depicting (among others) many original characters from Futaba-including ME-tan. As this was done without permission from the original designer of ME-tan, many people became angry with Netrunner, and the designer of ME-tan announced that it will never grant permission to use any of its work to anyone related to Netrunner. Furthermore, users from Futaba produced a series of banners and images, indicating that it doesn't welcome anyone related to Netrunner. Several OS-tans were also included in these banners. In one OS-tan manga, 2K-tan and XP-tan break into Netoran's office (or literally "Netrun", an abbreviation of Netrunner) to rescue the abducted ME-tan, only to find that ME-tan has already killed everybody there using a knife with the name "B. Gate" (as in Bill Gates) on it. 2K-tan and XP-tan refer to "B. Gate" as "father".

and here's the butchered version

The controversy involving Netrunner, a monthly computer magazine in Japan, began when the magazine introduced an image board browsing software named Berry in an issue. The software was responsible for created a surge of traffic to Futaba Channel, as well as many inexperienced users who knew nothing about the rules and decorum of the image board. This had the affect of troubling, but did not entirely angering, the regular Futaba Channel users. However, the May 2004 issue of Netrunner was bundled with a set of trading cards, depicting many of the original characters from Futaba Channel artists including ME-tan. As this was done without permission from the artists permission, many people became angry with Netrunner and the designer of ME-tan announced that they would never grant permission to use any of its work to anyone related to Netrunner [9]. This has lead to the appearance of a number of different banners appear on artist websites against the magazine.

You removed this from the article entirely.

Dispute between Futaba Society and Deja VuDeja Vu Art Works is a doujin group in Japan, which has published doujinshi of the OS-tan called "Kyōyū Fol-DA!" (共有フォルDA!, kyōyū foruda?) (Literal translation: Shared Fol-DA!). However, it has clashed with Futaba society on several points:Deja Vu's manga use its own design of NT-tan (Windows NT 4.0 SP6) instead of Futaba's design. Futaba users claimed this is disrespectful to original creators of OS-tan, hence so called "stealing" OS-tan from them. Deja Vu claimed it has rights to create new characters. Deja Vu published a 2K-tan manga with "©Deja vu" on it. Futaba users claimed the copyright mark showed that Deja Vu ignored the original creator of OS-tan and claimed themselves as the original creators, and are intentionally misleading others (to think so). They also showed a screenshot on the Internet, showing some other doujin group mistaken Deja Vu and "Kyōyū Fol-DA!" as original creator. Deja Vu claimed it was only a careless mistake. A cosplay photo of XP-tan (by MALINO, a member of Deja Vu) was posted on Futaba, while the costume's tailor only permitted the photo to be posted in a membership-based cosplay site. Futaba users claimed that Deja Vu posted those photos, hence violating the agreement. Deja Vu claimed that it only posted the photo in the members-only cosplay site, but soon somebody posted those photos on Futaba with an insult. Later, a Futaba user found a link (hidden by using text in the same color as the background) which later was deleted. Futaba users claimed this as proof that Deja Vu actually violated the agreement. Deja Vu claimed its post was only a counter measure against the post in Futaba, and had no intention of violating the agreement. Later they deleted the link as it received complaints from the XP-tan costume's tailor. Originally in Deja Vu's homepage, one only claimed its manga was being published on Netrunner, but after the start of the dispute one changed its homepage and claimed that its manga on Netrunner was published without its permission. Futaba users claim this is a fact showing Deja Vu had been working for Netrunner. Deja Vu claimed the change in its homepage only reflects the facts. There are some other minor disputes. To the date of this edit (September 24, 2004), it seems that the dispute still can't be resolved, or at least that the parties involved have no intention of resolving it. Generally, Futaba Society considers Deja Vu as another enemy (just like Netrunner), Deja Vu declared it would continue to publish its manga, and other people either remain neutral (e.g. the creators of ME-tan and XP-tan) or ignorant of the dispute.

So stating the edits you.

Were probally trying to "americanize" it.
Show off your lousy editing skills
Probally work for Deja Vu Artworks
Were probally going to improve it but failed.

I hope you look over this kindly.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SU182 (talk • contribs).

Wow, I honestly don't know where to begin to respond to that ~ so lets start with your "talking points." First off, I'm not trying to Americanize the article, somethings were changed (like donburi to rice bowl) but they are largely a manual of style issue than anything else. Next off, I'm not egotistical so showing off my editing skills is a non-issue, plus this is Wikipedia, someone else editing your work is a fact of life. Third, Deja Vu Artworks is based in Japan, if I worked for them that would seem that I lived in Japan as well, in which case, why would I want to Americanize the article? Which brings us to trying to improve the article. As noted before, a good chuck of infomraiton in the original revisions was irrelevant - you do NOT need a song listing from a flash animation in an article that is a general overview of a subject. Also, the Deja Vu information was removed because it was unsourced and I can't seem to find any indication of resolution for the topic - it happened in 2004 and it is now 2007 either it was resolved or it fell by the way side, where as the Netrunner controversy is still on going and received a great deal of notice when it happened. If there is a bunch of information on Deja Vu that I am missing then by all means, point out some links and we can work it into the article. Now, in regards to most of the changes - this article toes very close to the fancruft category and as such most of the edits are there to try and pull it away from that category. In case you haven't noticed, most of the information in the List of OS-tans article is gone because that article was deleted; one of the reasons for which was fancruft. Now all that said, there is no reason why the descriptions of the top five 'tans can be expanded a bit, but you must remember that should not be a full bio of the characters, plus the fact that they can be changed at an artists whim means that you can't write in the matter of "OSX-tan is always seen poking XP-tan" with a stick - that is just one thing that an artist can do. --Darkstar949 02:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Irrevelent, First of all, a song listing is not irrevelant to this article and tells the user more about that certain piece of work, Secondly, Removing the Deja Vu conterversy is a violation of Wikipedia's POV, and Original Research terms, and by removing that, Your making sure that the event didn't even happen in the first place, It's just like Microsoft paying people to remove "inaccuracies" on their Wikipedia page.

It seems like you are shortening the info and making it more specific without giving more about that certain subject, It seems like you are trying to make it more readable and less knowledgabe, People have a right to know everything. --SU182 02:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The song listing is irrelevant to a page about OS-tan's because it does nothing to explain what OS-tan's are; however, it would be extremely relevant to an article about Troubled Windows. Since the Deja Vu contervery had a total of zero references to where more information could be found it falls under WP:V and even WP:OR. As I have stated a number of times, find some sources that can provide more informaiton on it and by all means, we can add it back in under it's own sections category listing. --Darkstar949 02:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You removed a particular song just because it has nothing to do with the subject on hand? Complete Bull, and removing the Deja Vu controversy just because it has zero refrences is also a fact, Your profile also tells me that you are a member of the USAF who likes Japanese Culture and anything based on military. Your edits are newbish and probally making it short and to the point, I know but I looked at it, You don't seem very reputable, You also can seem to make an article look like someone's first piece of work, That's the truth. --SU182 12:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You know that I removed more than just a single song from that section, I trimmed it down quite a bit. But once again, it was with the goal of only having the relevant information to OS-tan's history. That said, I did search around to see if I could find anything about the Deja Vu controversy and I only removed it after I found nothing. Now if you know something about it the by all means provide a reference in regards to it and we can clean-up the section so that it will reflect of the overall "B" status of the article. There is no reason why this article cannot get up to "Good" status, but arguing about the nuances that lead to it getting "B" status is not going to helps improve the article.

Furthermore, Wikipedia editors are expected to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. Your recent replies are firmly in the realm of personal attacks.--Darkstar949 16:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You think I'm making personal attacks on you, No, I'm merely pointing out that you have shrunk the article and made many errors in the progress. --SU182 21:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Your edits are newbish" that is considered to be a personal attack. --Darkstar949 22:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Welll while we are on the subject, This should state why your edits are newbish.

That's one of your edits. --SU182 09:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That edit is over a year old and was for a stub article, are you making it a point of your day to go through my history and try find ways to attempt to insult me? --Darkstar949 15:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, We find ways to prove you wrong, Your cotributions seem to be giving out info at a

very fast pase without any sourcing of any kind, your edits also seem to lean tords the

fanboyish side and without question, You also seem to just find info, Insert it in a

wikipedia newbie way and click. Your articles also seem to give out info that could

easily be found on any article about that certain subject. --SU182 16:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's probably irrelevant now, but I think Darkstar's edits greatly improved the article. Skittle 21:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Non Windows OS Tans

Why aren't there images and descriptions of—or even mention of—the Mac OS Tans and the Linux Tan and other non Windows Tans? Kakaze 04:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

They're only minor characters that would only bload up the article, Unnessecary Info. --SU182 08:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There isn't even a mention of any non Windows characters...what you call "bload" I call useful information. What ever happened to the list of all the characters anyway? There should be a list. Kakaze 08:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The list of all OS-tans was deleted by the admins for being non-encyclopedic, and they warned us to only keep an nominal list of examples in this article as well. --Darkstar949 13:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Should be at least minimal mention of their existance. 24.87.22.207 07:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be Tan's OTHER than just Microsoft. They are NOT the only OS and this artical is VERY bias at present, which goes against Wikipeda rules, as I understand then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.32.68.211 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 11 May 2007

wait!! after i read.. i agree with you. But why OS server not include? even thought they only spice the things up.. but Win Server was family--Landavia 07:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've actually never seen Windows tans before now. I've only seen Linux and browser tans. I know that's a very subjective statement, but I think at least they should be mentioned. Bajsejohannes 15:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

POV-Check for March 19, 2007

The article has been nominated for a NPOV check for the following reasons:

The article has been reverted to a prior form overwriting edits and references - Wikipedia:Assume good faith
The article fails to cite sources regarding controversy - WP:V, WP:OR
The article shows signs of fancruft in various parts - Wikipedia:Fancruft

Furthermore the article will be demoted to Start class for the remainder of the POV-Check. If the editors cannot resolve their differences involving the article it will be nominated for third party Attribution. --Darkstar949 13:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

One, YOU'RE NOT A MODERATOR, Two, It's been in nomination for a few days now. --SU182 13:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)+

No, I am not a moderator, however, any editor that is having a dispute with another editor has the right to voice their concerns (which I have done) and if the concerns are not resolved by the editors then they also have the right to request third party attribution. I have tried to work with you on the article, but you showed and unwillingness and by reverting the article to one of your previous edits you further reinforced that unwillingness. As such I am voicing my concerns and inviting you to work with me on the article so that we may avoid the attribution process. As I have stated before, I only want to improve the article. --Darkstar949 13:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, You should become an Administator, With that kind of knowledge, No one will ever doubt you, I forgot, Please join something that makes you worthy, Join CVU, Join some products, Do what you please.--SU182 14:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are still there, Please respond... --SU182 03:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still around, but I'm being distracted by life. --Darkstar949 12:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and childish banter is not contributory to Wikipedia's atmosphere. Most people would tell you to "grow up". However, seeing as that may not occur, please try to keep bickering to a minimum. -- 71.116.87.118 8:54, 14 April 2007

This is just my obvservation, but it seems to me from reading this page that Darkstar has made some reasonable edits and presented reasonable arguments to justify those edits. Instead of engaging Darkstar in a conversation to build consensus as required by Wikipedia's standards, it seems SU182 has evaded Darkstar's arguments by attacking his credibility, which, by the way, is a logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well." But, thats just my two cents.Nimrand 13:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What resonable, He removed a lot of stuff that made the article great, Removed a lot of Japanese Refrences, Replaced -tan with girls, and basicly downsizing the article, Now the one before Darkstar was better cause it didn't replace everything so that americans can understand it, and if you look at his edits, You'll see that his edits has come a long way and that he's only good for understanding Wikipedia's policies. --SU182 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not everything Japanese is automatically better. Since this is an English-language encyclopedia, the goal is to make articles as clear as possible to native speakers of English without the need for obscure cultural knowledge. Unless you can provide a compelling reason otherwise, that's what it will stay.

Likewise, downsizing is not inherently a bad thing: excess verbosity benefits no one at all. Deleting information is a personal judgement call, but the clarity and flow of the article are more important considerations than covering every trivial unsourced detail or hypothesis about the OS-tans. This is an encyclopedia article, not a garbage dump for information. -Seventh Holy Scripture 06:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The goal is to store every bit of information while writing it in an encyclopedic fashion, Japanese or not, It's to store everything about the article while keeping it's culturial roots, While at the same time, Making it easy for anyone to understand this, It's like we'd like to say, Complexity for the simple, If you see this goal in the wikipedia rules, Let me know. --SU182 14:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The goal is NOT to store every bit of information. This is why, for instance, the descriptions of so many of the characters were deleted. And the idea of writing every bit of information while keeping encyclopedic is oxy-moronic. Read WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Particularly, unsourced material should not be included in the article. If no suitable source can be found for the information, it should eventually be deleted. Also, the "cultural roots" of the article is only important to provide the reader context. Therefore, it is very appropriate to use English words in place of Japanese ones to provided that the article is still accurate. If the article is not accessible to someone who knows nothing of OS-tans or Japanese culture, then the article has not served its purpose. Furthermore, linking the English transaction of a term to an article with more information about the Japanese term is also very appropriate, which is what I believe Darkstar did in at least one case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nimrand (talk • contribs) 18:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

I know but to store every known information that isn't knowlegadble, This is an encyclopedia not a phone book but the only thing that you care about is making it accessable, What about all the other articles that sport complex phrases that the newbie doesn't understand, Wikipedia is not about making it acessable, It's about the user and how he has a world of knowledge to understand, It for the user to understand, not to half-understand. --SU182 20:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say the only thing I care about is to make it accessible. But, I don't just care about the amount of information in Wikipedia, I also care about its quality and the quality of how the information is presented. I believe using English words makes it better quality because makes the article more accessible to more people, without harming the quantity of information or overall accuracy of the article. Is it really important that only the Japanese word for rice-bowl be used in the article for one to understand OS-tans? I don't think so, particularly when the rice-bowl article is linked to. As for the articles that "sport complex phrases that the newbie doesn't understand." If that is really the case, then the article should be edited. An encyclopedia, by its very nature, is reference material for looking up information on a random topic. Therefore, an article should be written such that most people can read the article on its own and understand it, with links to related articles for more information. But, as far as its avoidable, the article shouldn't be written so that one had to read lots of other articles to understand the one he or she is really interested in. I really don't understand why you think its so important to protect the article's "cultural roots," whatever that means. The article should provide context about Japanese culture, sure, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse for using Japanese words when English ones would suffice.

"Not everything Japanese...". I can agree with that sentiment. It's silly to quibble over the use of the word rice bowl when it's best to go with English terms in such cases. However, SU182 also complained about OS-tan being changed to OS-girl. That's going too far since the accepted term is OS-tan. While I'm at it I'll also weigh in on "Dispute between Futaba Society and Deja Vu". Please write it as a single paragraph instead of a detailed list. Right now it's taking up so much space that it sounds like a bigger deal than it is. It is, however, worth mentioning the dispute, just in case some confused soul wonders where proper credit for the OS-tans should go. Come to think of it, "Futaba Society" is a poor choice of words. It implies that the site as a legal entity was opposed to Deja Vu, or that it was a formal association linked to Futaba. In reality it was a group of largely anonymous artists and their equally anonymous fans hanging out on one of the random boards that got worked up about proper credit. It's deeply ironic somebody would write "instead of Futaba's design" in a text about proper credit, as it gives the erraneous impression that Futaba owns the designs. MechaDonna 00:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The Deja Vu segment isn't about anonymous author's worked up about proper credit, It's about a Doujin group called Deja Vu Artworks pissing off Fubutra channel, As stated, The things that pissed them off was not using their designs, Creating their own designs, and Voilating agremments and the fact that they might be Netrunner. The orginization that Fubutra hates so much now that's my opinion but if you think that it's wrong. Do research on the subject! --SU182 00:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to do research on the subject. If the information doesn't have a source, then its unverifiable and therefore cannot be included on Wikipedia. If its just your opinion, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Nimrand 01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I agree that replacing OS-tan with OS-girls is going too far. Nimrand 01:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Dispute between Futaba Society and Deja Vu

This section is over due for some clean up and sources. For the clean up it will need to be placed into paragraph format and for references it will need at least one regarding that an issue existed and one regarding the resolution if it can be found. Odds are if nothing can be found then the section might need to be considered or removal - the issue happened back in 2004 so there should be something out there on the internet if it was a significant event. --Darkstar949 05:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I think it needs to be removed. I don't really see this being necessary to the article, and as you pointed out, its 3 years old, and no real sources.--Crossmr 17:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for removing the section as well, however, if you look though some of the talk page you will see the last time it was removed there was some controversy. I would say we leave it there for another day or two and if nobody says anything or comes forth with sources we remove it. --Darkstar949 04:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it has been a week and no body has come up with any indication any form of a source for it so it is being removed. --Darkstar949 04:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

English References

Reference #2 needs a translation found for it. References don't do much good if no one can verify them. As well there are a lot of claims made in the first few paragraphs that don't seem to be supported by any of the references. For example "...the Tan suffix has largely fallen out of favor with the original creators of the OS-tans on Futaba Channel." and "...and is partly responsible for the spread of the OS-tans to English language imageboards" can either of those be sourced properly per WP:ATT?--Crossmr 14:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say on the translation for #2 - if you want something official then odds are it will not materialize, however, if you want something unofficial the odds are it could appear fairly quickly. However, my understanding of WP:ATT is that non-English sources are allowed, but discouraged. As OS-tans are still primarily a Japanese cultural item it is a bit difficult to find original English sources that can be used. Sam applies to the OS-tan's losing the Tan suffix however the part about their spread can likely be edited out.

Breast-size, memory, and hunger are a bit difficult to cite as most discussion is done on image boards which tend to delete threads quickly, however, I have seen the "Needs more memory!" meme in reference to a lesser endowed OS-tan. As such, for now, to a degree it is original research; however, worth keeping as a source will likely be forth coming. --Darkstar949 17:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if that is where it comes from, its is very clearly original research and I'm going to remove it. Forums are not acceptable for citation except in very limited and specific circumstances (i.e. a company representative, and clearly identifiable as one makes a statement through there)--Crossmr 17:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the person that gave the rule of thumb is a moderator of the OS-TAN Forums/Wiki and provided a link to a Dōjinshi as an example of how artists treat the material. It is a primary source, but we are dealing with a subject matter that has a relative dearth of secondary sources so some primary sources (i.e. dōjinshi) are going to have be used to an extent. --Darkstar949 04:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Forums aren't usable as sources. This isn't the case of a company spokesperson making a press release via a forum (which is their only usable manner, and usually the press release should be available elsewhere). Even then the only part usable for citation is the companies press release and not any replies to it. This is a theory by a non-notable individual who is part of the fandom. this isn't remotely sourcable information.--Crossmr 16:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I can understand where you are coming from, however, please remember that OS-Tans are not the product of a single company and as such there is not a company spokesperson or press release that can be used as a source. However, there are a number of Dōjinshi that make use of the breast size as a form of commentary about the operating system(s) so this can't be classified as purely speculative information. That said, what you would you consider to be an acceptable reference for the paragraph? I can find some doujin that can be used primary sources both in Japanese and in translated English. --Darkstar949 18:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what OS-Tans are. They don't get an exemption from the rules of citation, attribution, and original research because of it. Nothing does. WP:V puts the burden of evidence on the person who wants the material included to provide the appropriate citation. That thread is not even in the remotest possible way an acceptable citation. if you cannot provide one the material will be removed until you can provide it. If a credible news organization, or magazine, or other publication (not a self-published fansite, or other type of web content) were to do an article on OS-Tan and state this fact that would be an acceptable citation. Otherwise, please do not re-add material to wikipedia that cannot be properly sourced. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth.I will give you a short time to find a citation as a sign of good faith, but this will be removed again unless it can provided.--Crossmr 02:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are putting the bar quite high on the requirements of evidence for this article - I understand where you are coming from, but it seems like you are out right dismissing what I am saying with out giving it much thought. As it stands now the are a grand total of zero sources that you would consider acceptable due to the fact that they are not from a "creditable" new organization, magazine, or other publication. You also state that fan published material is not acceptable, however, by proxy this would also exclude pretty much the entire genera of fan published material that OS-tans exist with in - in short they are a pop culture meme are haven't been around long enough start accumulating any secondary sources. If you go through the article in detail you will note that most of the references are actually to primary sources - some even to the websites of some of the original designer of the characters. I encourage you to take a look at some of the other articles on internet memes - pretty much all of the articles have a relaxing of the rules and inclusion of primary sources (usually multiple for the better written ones) as a foundation for the articles accuracy. Now, that said, I've added no less than four different references for the section including a blurb from the Wired magazine website. --Darkstar949 04:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The bar is the same for all articles and all sources. No subject gets any special pass on WP:V, WP:OR and other key policies. Its my suggestion that you read them again, because the policies are very clear on what is acceptable for citation and how it can be used, they're also clear on how important they are to content on wikipedia. If editors have gotten together on some articles and relaxed their requirements it wasn't with community consensus. Wikipedia is huge, and edits using inappropriate sources on one article isn't a green light to use them on another article. You've added 4 sources. 1 is a forum, and 2 are blogs. None of those are acceptable for citation. Wired is a good source, but what does it say? "People with a lot of spare time have tried to prove that the breast size of characters is proportional to minimum installed RAM requirements for the corresponding OS." This doesn't state this as fact, it states that some random people have tried to prove this as fact, implying that they haven't succeeded. You've also reinserted a source which I pointed out was not appropriate and didn't meet the threshold for use as a citation. I'm editing the section to reflect the only usable citation. If you feel other internet memes are getting away with sketchy sources that is a reason to evaluate those articles, perhaps create a cleanup taskforce, and make sure they comply with policy. That is not a reason to relax the rules on another article because you want to see content in it you can't properly source. In regards to primary sources, these have been known to be usable in the case where the primary source is reliable, i.e. an episode of a TV show and content contained there-in. The episode is considered reliable and official, and if an editor wishes to verify information from it, it can usually be easily and cheaply obtained. Trying to use a similar type of source from a fandom is another story though. You might say "Artist X has drawn his OS-Tan characters with larger breasts to illustrate the difference in memory requirements". Great, but so what? Is Artist X notable for some reason, or are you just trying to use that information to build a case? Using a weasel word like "some artists do this" is a cop out. If there are 2 million artists, and 1 or 2 do it, its still "some" and technically true, but its a PoV issue. You can't say how many people do that or believe it. Is this a significant view point or a trivial minority? If you can't source those answers, I'm sorry but the material can't be in the article. If you can't find enough material about OS-Tan to source a full article reliably, then maybe it needs to be merged with Internet Memes. --Crossmr 07:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Under your parameters of citations the entire article is sketchy and yet you are only focusing on the Breast size and memory section - which I have presented you with material indicating that it is in fact a common theme - is there any particular reason that you are focusing solely on that section? Now that said I have found noting in WP:V or NOR - Sources that states that blogs are not acceptable material for sources an article and both the blogs that I provided fall within the realm of a Primary Source which is discourages by Wikipedia policy, but not prohibited. Furthermore, the OS-TAN forum would also be acceptable as a primary source (it is a documentation of a conversation) but is a bit weak in the verifiability department - but not out right unverifiable. This makes it a bad candidate for a citation; however, as an article note it is acceptable. If we are going to keep going back and forth in this matter of the nature of notes and citations then might I suggest getting some sort of extremal community census on this? Odds are the foreign language nature of the material combined with the fact doujin and OS-tan CG artwork are by definition fan production is going to make this a tedious area to provide citations for. I can keep resenting you with material about the common themes but if you keep dismissing them it will be difficult to arrive at an agreement about things. Hoverer, I have updated the overall section a bit to reflect the fact that as common themes they are still subject to the artists desire when creating the work. --Darkstar949 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Back the left. These are not my requirements. These are the requirements of wikipedia. To look at the forum and blog citations as primary sources, you have to look at 1) What do you want to source from them, 2) Why is this blog considered a good citation? 3) Is the person who wrote this information any kind of expert, and why is their opinion of value to be cited on wikipedia? The problem with blogs and forums is that anyone can write anything. There is no fact checking, there is no assurance of editorial over sight, and anyone can write one. I could very easily write one right now that says the exact opposite of any blog or forum you'd like to provide and it would be no more or less reliable. As it is, we have one good source, and the information it provides us clearly states that there is no consensus that such a thing takes place. Nor does the one usable citation support the material you've added to that paragraph. You admit that these sources are suspect, and I've objected, yet you continue to re-add them and the material to the article. You don't have the appropriate sources to support this material. You've done nothing to demonstrate that the writer of those blogs is a professional researcher or well known journalist. These are the only exceptions made to the use of self-published sources except in the case of self-reference (i.e. bill gates blog could be used for information about bill gates). Dan Rathers blog could be used as reference for a wide number of things if he was writing as a journalist in them.--Crossmr 20:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't it be carefully reworded to say something along the lines of "There have been speculations that breast size correlates to the amount of memory"? - hmwith talk 23:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Speculation would be the wrong word though because some doujin (japanese comic books) use the breast size of the OS-tan as a means of joking about the system memory requirment. This is why say that is is a common theme is accurate. However, perhaps the wording along the lines of "Occasionally, artists of dōjinshi will use the size of the breasts of the OS-tan to make reference to the system memory requirements..." --Darkstar949 00:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The best way to source this would be to use a primary source from a creator of OS-Tan, preferably one who is notable within the community who states that when he drew them, he used the breast size to indicate this. You still have to avoid weasel words though. Using words like "occasionally" or "sometimes" puts some kind of opinion on how often this is done. Provide a couple of primary sources from the artists which says why they did it would be enough to state "These artists have done this and this is the reason", you could tie in the wired citation with that. A blog or forum post of someone speculation about it won't cut it.--Crossmr 01:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Remember that there is no single creator of the OS-Tans - they were created via a group effort and the character designed are used by many artists as needed as elements of the story. One of the reoccurring jokes in these stories is the OS-tan's receiving a memory up grade indicated by an increase in their breast size. This isn't necessarily true for every single appearance of an OS-Tan, but it is a common theme as such words such as "occasionally" or "sometimes" are not necessarily weasel words but indications of how often a theme appears - if you have a better way of stating it let me know but it is in the realm of "Sometimes artists use the color red to abstractly indicate the color of blood; while other times red is just the color red." --Darkstar949 13:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to agree with Darkstar949 on the usage of forums as an acceptable source for an article like this (provided that the forum provides reliable information...read on). It isn't setting aside WP:V, it's simply interpreting it in the best interests of the encyclopedia. It is important to consider that verifiability is not defined by the form of media. For example, newspapers are in general a good reliable source for news, yet some newspapers, say The Onion are not. Consider a forum on psychology that only the most esteemed psychologists could join. This forum could serve as a valid source for many purposes. For this reason, a forum is not necessarily an invalid reference. If a forum is populated by the experts on a topic, as the fans of an internet phenomenon might be, it can very well be considered a reliable source. If it is an active forum, it provides fact checking in the form of objections raised to inaccurate statements. Simply put, ignore all rules here and focus on the principles themselves -- determine whether the sources are reliable by checking how reliable they really are, not by disregarding (nor accepting) them solely for their format. Remember, WP:RS suggests always using the most reliable sources available, and not-very-reliable does not mean unreliable, so it might be fine until a better source comes along.. Ichibani 06:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That is my sediments as well - I prefer to use hard and fast sources when I can, but sometimes the subject matter requires you to be a bit more flexible in what you can use. When I was doing the research for the cleaning up of the article from the original version I was unable to find any indication that the breast size and memory information was not true, so there was no purpose in removing it from the article. Now that people are requesting sources on the information I have been able to find quite a few that indicate that the fan community is in agreement, but since people aren't exactly writing academic papers about the OS-tans it is difficult to find sources outside of the community (especially if you want them to stay in English as much as possible). That said we will have to see how the discussion goes - if it continues to stay at an impasse we might have to see about elevating things up a bit for a determination. --Darkstar949 13:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I love OS-tan as much as the next guy but this isn't Memepedia and WP:RS applies as much here as elsewhere. If that means deleting the article so be it. It's unfortunate, but we have to remember that the original goal of Wikipedia is to summarize reliable information, not have interesting articles based on unreliable (albeit true) information. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 08:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the article was already put up for deletion once and it is still around so odds are even if it went up for deletion again it would be still voted for keep. Also, if the information is true then way pull it out of the article? If anything it should be a motivation to search more more sources for it. --Darkstar949 12:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The previous AfD was a bad faith nomination when the article was in its infancy (and thus not really expected to be well sourced just yet.) If the next nominator better explains why the topic is impossible to find reliable sources for, and may be inherently unencyclopedic due to that, it might meet with a different reception. -Seventh Holy Scripture

Very true, but the sources for an article are not inherently a viable reason to AfD an article, plus the fact that it is within the Anime and Manga and the Japan projects means that an AfD is unlikely to pass. Odds are the difficult nature of the sources for the article means that us as editors are just going to have to work together a bit harder to ensure that the article is accurate.--Darkstar949 14:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Darkstar, I have just spent three months getting unsourced claims removed from another article and I assure you that it will eventually happen no matter what AfD says. Also I'm not sure why you think Wikiprojects have an effect on anything. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 16:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

However, this article has also be sourced - in my opinion it would touch on unethical to not do everything we can to maintain an article in Wikipedia. Also, Wikiprojects has an affect on things because it offers the article a community that believes it is notable and as such is worthy of putting the effort into. That said, perhaps we should start drawing up a list on what needs to be cited and/or worked on and what doesn't - it's a lot easier to discuss things point by point. Also, I do believe that at some point we are going to have to run things up the line a bit for a large scale discussion on what should and should not be consider valid for a reference and what must be downgraded to "just a note" status. --Darkstar949 17:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It is one thing to debate whether the sources you have are acceptable, it is a very different matter to debate whether they need to be. To argue against stringent application of WP:V is a battle that can't be won. Whether or not the other side is right to start that battle, they can't lose. Leaving the truth unsourced, it's most certainly doomed. The fact that a reliable source is out there won't help until that source is here. On the other hand, I believe that you can effectively defend some forums as a source, comparable to expert self-published sources, and that is how this article can be saved. I'll be happy to help you argue it if you think it can be done. Ichibani 20:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not debating if the sources are needed - rather, I am referring to what makes an acceptable source - I believe that the sources that I have been able to find are acceptable as they don't go against the self published sources checklist and as such should be acceptable for use in the article. This is partly why I would like to see an overall to-do list for the article - what content needs to have sources and as the sources come in we can discuss if they can or cannot be used. Trying to discuss all of the sources at once will get us no where fast (except maybe frustrated) while at least with a list of items we can point-counterpoint items and then if there is still an issue go in to a bit more debate about it. I have been working on improving this article for over a month now I am perfectly willing to admit that it is currently a bit of a "pet project" but that is partly because I think that it can be turned into a nice encyclopedic article. --Darkstar949 21:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The forums and blogs are still inherently unreliable. Whether they're fans or active fans, it doesn't matter. Its the very definition of an unreliable source. The best information you can source is "User X claims that as a general rule breast size is related to memory requirements". That is it. Then it becomes a question of "So what?". Who is user X and why does his opinion even remotely matter? You haven't given any evidence to justify why any of their opinions matter. Trying to use them to prove the point of view you want is also a clear case of OR. You claimed he was an expert, because he was a fan. I'm a fan of the TV show heroes. I'm sure as shootin not an expert. Nor would I even pretend to be. I participate in forums of all kinds of things on the internet, doesn't make me an expert, nor would I expect anyone to source what I wrote in an forum as verifiable fact. The blogs are no different. Unless you can demonstrate that the people who wrote those blogs are in fact experts the material will be removed.--Crossmr 00:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Forums and blogs are not inherently unreliable - they are worthy of question and closer examination before inclusion, but they are not unreliable. To say that forums are inherently unreliable would be to say that places such as Physics Forums are unreliable and About.com Physics Blog are unreliable. Do not attack the source of the source but rather the content of the source - is there reason to believe that it is not factual, yes or no and why.

Now if we look at the blog sources carefully - XP-tan video the punch line of the video was that XP-tan's breast size had increased hence evidence of a theme, how to read a chichikurabe provides a diagram correlating breast size and memory size. The section that we have been discussing has not been trying to claim that the breast size is a joke about the memory requirements of all operating systems for all artists - just that it is a common theme and is used as a punch line - these sources back up that information in the context of what the article is stating.

Furthermore, you do not have to prove that someone is an expert in order to include their information - you just have to be confident that the information they are presenting is accurate. --Darkstar949 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In order to use a self-published source you have to prove them to be either a well known journalist or professional researcher, you've failed to do that. Wikipedia has standards for sources and what can be used from each one. Its not up to us to decide whether or not we "believe" whats written in a blog so we can use it. That is exactly what WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV are set up to prevent. If it becomes a judgment call, then it is clearly a pov issue, or an original research issue. You may choose to believe it, I may choose not to. From WP:RS Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. There is no reliable publication process with a blog or forum. We have no idea who the people are behind the posts on the forums or blogs, so we have no idea if they're trustworthy or authoritative. They fail in every sense of the word. The information is meaningless if it does not come from a reliable source. Also from WP:RS Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source. its been challenged, I left it as a sign of good faith, but you've failed to provide any reliable sources. As such I'm removing it in accordance with wikipedia guidelines and policies. If you want to argue those policies there is an on-going discussion here [1]. People have tried to argue for the inclusion of blogs and forums as sources before and the consencus has always been no, except in a very limited capacity (i.e. a blog used as a primary source about the person who writes it, as long as that is verifiable, and the case where a company spokesperson makes an official announcement through a forum where its also identifiable and reliable, i.e. company controlled forums.) From WP:V The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. and Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. As I said, you've had more than enough time if such reliable sources existed. As well Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, also In general, sources of questionable reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of questionable reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. These are questionable sources. No fact checking. When it comes to an "article about themselves", that means if it was an article about that forum, or an article about that blog. Not an article about the subject of either. And a very important point from the first line of WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. This cannot be done in this case. The policies and guidelines couldn't be anymore clear.--Crossmr 02:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, please do not use bold text as it is it rude and considered the equivalent to yelling at someone, additionally it breaks up the flow of the text and makes it hard to read - if you wish to emphasize something please use italic text. Second off, WP:IAR - if the sources are with another accepted source then there is no reason to remove it - sources don't just provide the reader where information was originally retrieved from but they also serve to point the reader in the direction of where they can find additional information. Third off - at this point we are arguing about what amounts to what is now a single sentence, this time could have been spent much more productively on the rest of the article. --Darkstar949 03:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

They're bolded because they're important. IAR does not apply to WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS or WP:NPOV. See the talk page, this has been a long and ongoing issue with IAR. One accepted source doesn't give you license to add additional information from unacceptable sources. If you cannot provide a reliable source for material it can't be in the article. Please do not add material to the article without providing appropriate source. You've been asked multiple times and there can no longer be an assumption of good faith.--Crossmr 04:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand they are important - that still doesn't mean that you have to bold them - italics are associated with emphasis online for a reason. Second, I am trying to start distinguishing between sources for the article and footnotes for the article. Footnotes for an article can be looser than a source by nature of what a footnote is - merely an indication of where the reader can find more information can be found.

Finally in regards to your comment that you feel that I am no longer acting in good faith - I have been trying everything I can to work with you to improve the article and I have asked a few times for a To-Do list for the article as a whole and I haven't even received a single response on it. I feel that the source are valid, you do not - this is not a sign of bad faith. We are debating the sources, yes, but perhaps this is more an indication that we need to ask for someone from the arbitration committee to step in and make a ruling. The fact that we disagree about the sources is not a sign of bad faith - merely that we are human and that we have a belly-button. --Darkstar949 04:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether you call it a source, or a footnote, it doesn't matter. If material in the article is questioned and you can't provide a source, it can't be there. Maybe the blog or forum is no longer a source and becomes an external link. this can happen if the site is a really good resource. But you cannot base material in the article on it. That is the problem. If that forum is the main forum where fans gather, great. Make it an external link. Using random forum postings to try and source opinions in the article doesn't fly. Every policy and guideline presented clearly states that it is no good as a reliable source. You claim you are trying to improve the article, yet you continually re-insert material which flies in the face of policy. Policy clearly dictates that you have to provide the reliable source, you haven't done so. You claim you have, but you haven't been able to point to a single applicable policy that would allow them as a source and I've provided multiple ones which deny it. No, IAR does not count, you can read the extend of the talk page and archives to find out why. If you think that you want to go the route of dispute resolution (I've actually already listed this on Third opinion the village pump for additional input) you have to realize that the material you want included doesn't meet the threshold and it should be left out until a case can be made for its inclusion. I appreciate your removal of the links, but now the text isn't supported by the citation, because the claim being made isn't confirmed in that citation. That is the problem. The source doesn't say this sometimes happens, the source says that some people try to prove it happens, but it gives no indication that they're successful in proving that which would indicate that it does indeed happen.--Crossmr 05:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: Wow, quite a bar some have set for a pop-culture phenomenon. To begin, I will point out Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples#Popular culture and fiction which acknowledges (in a Wikipedia Guideline, just as WP:RS is a guideline) that academic-level sources are just not going to be found for most pop-culture phenomena. This doesn't mean anything goes, but it gives us a direction to look. Darkstar949 is right about foreign-language sources, BTW.

As for forums: There is a guideline that gives more latitude in use of forum and blog posts than has been stated. If there exists a forum with "identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy", that forum can be considered for use as a reliable source in such a pop-culture field. Furthermore, the guideline in relation to pop-culture sources states that forums, blogs, and the like are not suitable as secondary sources; as a primary source they still might be useful. An example: a forum post stating "often, breast size == memory usage" wouldn't be a reliable source, but a thread with 200 contributing users (including OS-tan creators) discussing and agreeing that "often, breast size == memory usage" would be a primary source supporting such a statement.

Also, a blog post by an OS-tan creator discussing their creations falls under "article about themselves" for this article, although statements about others' work or OS-tan in general are not reliable.

To summarize: IMO, the one side here should relax a bit and realize a pop-culture phenomenon is not going to have official peer-reviewed 100% reliable sources and will probably use more primary source references than would be appropriate in other contexts. There are official guidelines that support "lowered" standards of reliability in pop-culture fields. The other side should make sure that any sources referenced are of the highest quality and should ideally provide multiple independent sources as often as possible. Additional text in the footnotes supporting the use of the questionable reference would also be helpful. Don't use short-lived forum posts, get a reliable archive to archive them and reference them there. Anomie 03:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What you state isn't happening. The blog is being used to source the fandom in general and the thread provided isn't what you describe. Lets look at that more clearly Material from bulletin boards and forum sites, Usenet, wikis, blogs and comments associated with blog entries should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence. From the get go, these are out. The exception you quote: identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may , exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics I see no evidence of a declared corrective moderation policy. There is no exception made for its inclusion. Also the exception for their use under popular culture clearly states it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. At best their a primary source and can only speak directly to what the writer says about themselves. They cannot comment on others. So as I stated before, you can say "User X feels this is true" but we go back to who cares and why is their opinion important enough to be included? That hasn't been demonstrated.--Crossmr 04:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the sources that I provided to the OS-TAN Forums was made by the Wiki Moderator - this means that they are notable within the community they are a part of and therefore they are a viable primary source of information. This also means that they are expected to have a degree of familiarity with the material in order to properly maintain the Wiki. Furthermore, the OS-TAN Wiki entry on Breast Size, Hunger, and Memory is an elaborated version of what the Wikipedia article previously stated. Technically this would actually be a good source for the Wikipedia article as it is not editable by the general public (registered members only) and moderated by designated members of the OS-TAN community. --Darkstar949 05:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

He's the moderator of a wiki, not the forum. You're trying to source him from the forum. You still haven't established that he's an expert, please read the requirements again.--Crossmr 12:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Taking a look at the two references that Crossmr reverted (and Darkstar since brought back).:

http://www.wired.com/culture/design/multimedia/2007/04/gallery_mascots?slide=10&slideView=3 Provides partial support for the statement it is listed as a reference for. If this is the only reference, the statement should be reworded to express the article's own uncertainty.
http://japansugoi.com/wordpress/os-tan-girls-xp-tan-video Looks okay and supports the statement, but might be unreliable. They have some level of expertise, but making sure they tend to be accurate would be the way to go.
http://www.minaidehazukashii.com/?p=78|title=how%20to%20read%20a%20chichikurabe A blog with no reason to believe this guy's an expert. Not a good source.
http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA036210/ This isn't a source of information, it's a link to the program you're talking about. Find a real reference.

I'm removing all but the second reference, but I've no grounds nor reason to challenge the information itself, so I'm leaving it. If there are other sources and facts in question, lets discuss them individually here. Ichibani 05:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the sources - the NEGiES one is just for the software, we are going to need to get another one for the actual scallions joke reference; however, I should note that a lot of the information in the article is from much older revisions so it may just need to be removed. That said, I found a source that should work for the breast size and memory section, however, it is OS-TAN Wiki entry on Breast Size, Hunger, and Memory so it may need to be discussed. However, since it is a non-public (registered members only) and moderated I feel that it is safe as a primary source. --Darkstar949 05:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Taking a look at the history for that wiki, it is not very active. That article was written by one user, but going with WP:V#SELF I feel comfortable using it, particularly if any reputation can be established for the user. He is a moderator, so establishing his reputation might not be too hard. When referencing it, I'd use a permanent link to the referenced version. Ichibani 05:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is all the more reason to not use it as a source. There has been no establishment that the individual is an expert, and that there is a corrective process. The requirements are very clear that using these sources is a great exception. The burden has not been met to show that this exception should be made. It has to be demonstrated that he is an expert and there is a corrective process. Neither has been done.--Crossmr 12:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

However, what are we using to establish someone as an expert? The term is also dependent upon the context of the individual and unless we establish it now there is likely to be further debate about sources. The individual is a moderator for the Wiki as well as a moderator for the forums - this should be sufficient to consider them notable with in their own community. --Darkstar949 12:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The exception isn't made for notable individuals. Wikis, forums, blogs, etc have a long history of being denied. Even this exception seems like its recent as I previously had not heard of it (and I honestly wonder if it has consensus). As such, unless you can give evidence that he meets the criteria, then anything from him cannot be used as a source. Its very clear that he has to be an expert and that there has to be a declared corrective policy, which you have not demonstrated either. Even if you can prove him an expert without a declared corrective policy he's still out as a source.--Crossmr 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

For argument's sake. This source could be acceptable as a self-published source. The fact that he chose to publish on a wiki (or a blog or message board) is irrelevant. Wikipedia's not a beauracracy, the policies aren't there for their own sake, but to ensure the well being of the encyclopedia. So when policy isn't clear (as we have here with the choice to interpret this source as either self published article or moderated forum), WP:IAR for a moment and consider the attribution polices solely for their intent. Would the wiki-posted writings of an expert on the field, who we trust, be suitable for this article? I answer yes. WP:V#SELF provides policy that is appropriate in line with this. Would you agree that if we can effectively investigate the author and establish confidence in his knowledge, his research would be acceptable? Ichibani 06:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can reliably establish that the author is a well-known professional researcher in a relevant field who has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. I'd also question whether a forum post really constitutes "self-published", but there still hasn't been any evidence given that the forum is moderated with a corrective policy. There have been many arguments about very specific criteria under which this could be included, and yet, no one has bothered to actually provide the required information. This has been sitting around long enough that if someone had any evidence that this individual was a well-known professional researcher it should have been brought up by now. In order to establish that, it would require reliable confirmation that the individual posting in the Wiki was indeed the well-known researcher. Well-known within the community doesn't cut it. I'm very active in some online communities and well-known within them, but that doesn't make me a citeable source for anything on the subject of those communities. In order for this individual to meet the criteria, I would expect him to be a well-known researcher (I should be able to google his name and get multiple concrete and notable returns for his real name) in the fields of art or animation or something of that nature. So far I haven't seen anything provided other than the fact that he's active in the community.--Crossmr 07:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done some looking around a guideline has been set forth - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) which actually softens the bar for WP:RS in the context of articles about fiction; the bottom line is that third party analysis can be used as long as the author cites their sources. The way WP:V#SELF is written actually bothers me a bit as I understand the essence of it means, namely that you don't want someone to cite someone completely unknown for a high profile technical article like brain surgery. However, it seems that in the majority of the articles where it is referenced on the talk page - professional researchers don't exist. As in the case of OS-tans - there are no professional researchers out there working on the subject.

Now that said - you are putting the requirements extremely high for what constitutes a well known researcher and for that matter researchers are generally specialists - it is unlikely that one is going to take the time to write about the OS-Tan's anyway. Also, their are a lot of notable researchers that wouldn't appear in a Google or Google Scholar search anyway for a variety of reasons - doesn't this mean that they are still not notable?

Finally, the nature of the source is dependent upon the nature of the statement - if the article says something like "X always means Y" then it needs to have a very definitive source to state that; however, if the article says something like "Some fans have noted a parallel between X and Y" then a citation of a notable fan community should be sufficient if there is an agreement within that community.--Darkstar949 17:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in the manual of style does it soften it. Also remember that WP:V is policy and MOS is a guideline. A policy has more weight than a guideline. As it is, MOS again doesn't allow him as a source If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research.. His writing isn't a secondary source. Its a primary source about his opinion. He's trying to interpret what others mean by how they draw. WP:V doesn't in anyway say "If you're writing about fiction, its okay to use any old opinion you want from any old place, because really its not that important that we hold it to a high standard". All articles on wikipedia are held to the same standard. Consistency leads credibility to the content. There is no reason an article on OS-Tan should be any less reliable than an article on brain surgery. If it can't be cited from reliable sources than it doesn't deserve an article on wikipedia. I've already pointed out that you should avoid using weasel words in articles. Using weasel words you can fill an article up with all kinds of garbage simply by saying "some ...." I'm sure if you dug around in a fan-dom you could find "some" who believe or do just about anything. As far as no professional researchers go, it does allow for professional researchers in relevant fields. Animation or art would be relevant and there are likely professionals studying these. If he happens to be one of those feel free to present the evidence. You deciding there is an agreement within a fan community is original research. That is your interpretation based on a forum posting. Statisticians completely ignore things like forums for the reason that they're not usually fully indicative of what any subset of a group believes. Only those with strong opinions often go there to argue the points. If you have some evidence that this individual is a well known professional researcher please present it, and present where he's published his writing. And honestly a wiki that anyone can edit doesn't count. You cite it today, tomorrow it says something else. As soon as someone else contributes to it, its no longer his work.--Crossmr 02:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Every one of your comments here hit me as wikilawyering -- you're sticking to the letter of the policies while losing their spirit. The policies evidently have a weak spot in the area of notable cultural topics. When I suggested that you IAR before, I said so because I believe you are failing the spirit of the policies by lingering on the wording instead of the idea. So please, for a moment, consider the source on its own merits -- not the medium on which it was published -- . Take it completely out of context; copy it into a word processor and read it there, and determine whether its content is acceptable. Then, investigate its author (who, thankfully, is known) and determine whether (s)he is a reliable researcher. Heck, then if you want to be awesome, take the information you came across and write an essay about how to determine the verifiability of such sources.

Of course, this discussion is moot. I agree with you on the instance. The wiki source didn't seem to have any strongly redeeming factors, but I'll admit I didn't look into the author to decide fairly. I just would like to work on an understanding of how to best handle such articles. Ichibani 03:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The policies are there for a reason. Its not wikilawyering to follow them and insist others do as well. The spirit of the policies are that information on wikipedia should come from reliable sources that can be verified. We don't evaluate sources on what they say, we evaluate them on where they come from, that is an integral part of the policy. The moment we start to care about whether or not we believe what is written in a source (unless there is a reason like a more reliable source saying something opposite) it becomes OUR interpretation, and we're using suspect sources to write the article to say what we want. That is original research among other things. Just because an author is known, doesn't make him reliable or useful source. There is no criteria laid out in WP:V that says "If someone is really popular in a community you can source whatever you want off them". The best way to handle such articles is to simply realize that wikipedia is not a collection of all human knowledge. Every random interest and passing fad on the internet doesn't garner an article. When I was really active in recent changes patrol, I saw this come up a lot. There is a threshold for inclusion for that very reason. Every time you turn around on the internet 50 things have been made up that second. If the subject isn't notable and the article can't be sourced reliably, it just doesn't get an article here. We don't relax the rules just because its an obscure subject, the whole point of the rules are to avoid all these random obscure topics which don't garner a lot of interest. By their very nature it will be hard to write articles about them because they're so obscure and there hasn't been stuff written about them by reliable sources. That isn't a slight against the topic. If its a truly notable topic, eventually things will be written, sources will become available and the article can be expanded. If you want more coverage on OS-Tan, encourage an anime mag to do an article about it.--Crossmr 00:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, before I try to type of any form of a reply - what do you define a "professional researcher" to be. You keep using the phrase and citing it from the Wikipedia polices but you don't define it. Please do. --Darkstar949 03:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A professional researcher would be an individual who works as a researcher for a company, or post-secondary institution like a university. Their primary job function and description would be "research". There is also a requirement that they be published by a reliable source. If this individual is a professional researcher it should be verifiable, and you should be able to point to reliable source which has published their research. Which will usually means some sort of print peer journal. This should also be verifiable. The research also has to be a relevant field. If he's a professional researcher but his field of research is the cockroach in outer mongolia, that doesn't qualify him. It should be something like Art, animation or something of that nature.--Crossmr 00:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone back and looked over the entire English References discussion that has occurred and based on your replies it is pretty clear to me that nothing I can say will sway your opinion on what would constitute a WP:RS for this article so I would just recommend that you go ahead and AfD it. Perhaps via that some form of a decision could be reached as to appropriate sources for the article, or some more editors could be stirred in to working on it.

However, as an aside, what you are looking for a primary source in regards to a professional researcher is a bar that is more or less impossibly high for the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia. Even a a research university there are very few staff members that carry a job description that consist solely of "research." Also, one would think that material from a professional researcher would be acceptable even if it was outside their field of specialization - just because someone researches topic A for a living doesn't mean that they can't research topic B in their spare time as a hobby; however, your reply indicates that you would exclude their information as well. --Darkstar949 01:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Back to the left again. The policy requires a related field because we're making an exception to declare them reliable or at least their opinion be reliable in that field because its their job to be knowledgeable about it. Unlike a hobby its likely their primary source of income and their welfare. Someone who works for a university (there are universities which have a heavy emphasis on research and would have more "research" opinions, plus there are many researchers who work for private companies). There is no reason Joe the Professional Researcher whose field is Goose Migration should be considered anymore reliable on the subject of Bolivian rock sculptures than Ned the Gardner from Australia. He's a researcher, great, but he has a specialization. We expect him to be knowledgeable and reliable about his field, not about something entirely unrelated, even if he does claim to study it in his spare time. I might claim to study it in my spare time too. Doesn't make me any more or less reliable. You also have to realize that the policy states that if the opinion they're expressing is truly important on the subject, someone should have, or will pick it up. That is an indication that you should approach even the self-published information from a professional researcher who meets that criteria with caution. Primary sources are allowed if they're not professional researchers, but this is typically only in articles about people when its the people who make the statements. If this individual was notable enough for an article on wikipedia, and he wrote something in a blog, forum, wiki, etc. and it could be reliably attributed to him (i.e. he has an official home page, and he identifies the account as belonging to him) it can be used within the article. But that is the limitation. OS-Tan unfortunately isn't a person that can speak for itself, so much like other non-sentient subjects it can't be a primary source for itself. Pieces of OS-Tan art can be used as primary sources for factual descriptions (i.e. this is a picture of windows 98, drawn as such) but interpreting what the drawing means becomes OR. This is often where you run into problems with fiction. People will use an episode, novel, etc to write about the piece of fiction but stray from factual description to interpretation of what a scene meant, or what a character was really meaning when they said X, or etc..etc.. This was a problem with some Star Trek related articles where some individuals couldn't resist trying to interpret every piece of body language, tone, emphasis, etc to try and build a case for a character meaning something specific by something vague they said to mean something even larger to build a case for something else to base an article on. That article no longer exists. If there is a sourcing issue, OS-Tan might have to become a stub. It would be nice if we had someone who spoke Japanese (or who could at least read it) who could help with the japanese source to determine what was reliable and what could be used from it. We still have the wired source, which is reliable, we just have to take the right information from it and not try to put words in their mouth. Its a simple matter of staying withing the policies and guidelines and improving and expanding articles as reliable sources come along.--Crossmr 02:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I speak a bit of Japanese and I can puzzle my way through rōmaji but not enough to to even want to bother with trying to find sources for the article if I am just going to debate things. However, the problem that you are describing isn't just limited tho this article - pretty much any pop culture article has sources that aren't reliable, original research, and unsourced statements. --Darkstar949 02:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the "References and In-jokes" section - it's clear from the 40 kilobytes of text that we are currently going no where fast towards any sort of viable section. Now, can we please start focusing on the article as a whole? --Darkstar949 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To-Do List

This is a to-do list for tasks that still need to be done to improve the article, at this point in time there is still quite a bit of work that needs to be done with the article as a whole.

The History section needs to be checked to see if it can be expanded a bit
The Tan Suffix section should be fine as is, but may need an additional source
The Examples section needs some more research and the number of examples appearing may need to be reduced so that it is following the spirit of the results of the AfD/List of OS-tans discussion
~~The References and in-jokes section needs some major work or may have to be considered for removal~~
The Movement against Netrunner should be fine as is, however, some research should be done to see if the controversy is still on going or if it has come to an end

--Darkstar949 13:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Movement against Netrunner needs better referencing, particularly for the first paragraph (and assuming the jp source is good). It makes very questionable claims about the community. That probably needs to be stripped as WP:OR. Also, dating the start of the controversy and improving the prose there a bit would be good. Ichibani 14:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's one of the sections in the article from way back when that had a grand total of zero sources to begin with. The little bit that I have been able to find shows that the controversy it is referencing is quite old (2005 if I remember correctly) and there really doesn't seem to be much going on in regards to the controversy lately. It might be another candidate for removal. --Darkstar949 14:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like something well worth keeping if references can be found. Ichibani 22:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is something worth keeping around, however, the trick is finding the sources. My Japanese isn't that good and the English language sources will likely get denied as per previous discussions. --Darkstar949 18:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Try anyway? If you think it's good, that is. At least it'll give me something to argue about. ;-) Ichibani 04:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A possible source

Darkstar, you said you understood a little japanese. Are you able to tell what this is? [2]. I saw it described as a "fan" book, but it has an actual ISBN, and I can't tell if there is a real publisher. It could be a potential source, here is an english page on it [3], still not clear if this is done by a reliable publisher or if its some kind of self-publish deal.--Crossmr 04:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at the Amazon page tomorrow, but I have seen that around before a few times. From what I remember, while it is not a true doujinshi most of the material is republished from doujinshi. Doujinshi are typically self published by the the artist(s) so it is a toss up in terms of sources - might be some secondary information in it, but odds are most of it would be primary sources (i.e. artists commentary). --Darkstar949 05:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. That is unfortunate. We really need someone who can tell us exactly what if anything can be taken reliably from that Japanese source. I worry about the domain name itself because I wonder if infoseek.co.jp is in fact just a self-published website repository like geocities. I'd like us to really examine the sources here and see what is usable both in terms of establishing notability and meeting the criteria laid out by wp:v, etc. We have a starting point in the wired source, and honestly I only want to approach merging (with internet memes) or deletion as a last resort if we really can't find at least 1 more reliable source (notability requires at least 2, and honestly its hard to build an article off a single reliable source, 2 isn't that much better unless they're very detailed and large sources). We currently have issues with statements like The concept of the OS-tans is reported to have begun... reported by who? if its not from a reliable source, that kind of statement becomes an issue. I'm going to tag this with a clean-up tag to indicate that its currently being worked heavily on, I will also continue to search for sources to help this article.--Crossmr 23:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am a bit iffy on if the doujinshi would fall under primary sources or not - something that might need to be brought up somewhere else. However, my impression is that something written by the artist should be acceptable. This is definitely one of the difficult topics as there is enough out there for it to be notable, but then you get in to the debate about how to source it. Personally I would think that the doujinshi should work as a primary source. --Darkstar949 23:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It works as a primary source, but a primary source of what? Its a primary source of the artist or artists words who contributed to the book. That works in articles about the artists if they're notable enough, but to apply it to another article becomes an issue. It still falls under that self-published source part of WP:V, which still requires them to be a prof researcher if we're going to use their words in an article in anything but one about them. On the other hand if this is published by a third party, it can be used much more readily as source. Its marginally better than a blog, or personal website, but not much. Do you know if there is a japanese group here on Wikipedia, maybe we can get some people who are more fluent to look in to some of these japanese sources.--Crossmr 23:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It would work as a primary source of the OS-tans due to the fact that if the artist writes something along the lines of "This is what this character means" then that is the best possible source that you can get in regards to a character. A secondary source would merely dictate that someone else recorded the artist saying said things. However, it still boils down to we need to find another editor that can read Japanese on better than the "struggle through it" level and get their opinion on things - this subject is difficult to research as most of the sources for it are in Japanese. --Darkstar949 00:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That is what that character means to that artist. That is the problem with the primary source. You could say something like "Artist X has stated that he draws the OS-Tans with larger breasts if the OS has larger memory requirements". That artist can't be a source for the whole community, for all we know artist y doesn't do that, and neither does artist z. In using a primary source in an article not about that primary source, you have to follow the policy under WP:V#self. A secondary source saying it for the community would be something like the Wired source. If the wired source had said "OS-Tans are typically drawn with larger breasts to indicate more memory usage" terrific. That means we consider wired to be a reliable source, and they've gone out and done their research to draw that conclusion. We cannot draw that conclusion on our own. Its original research which there is a strict policy against.--Crossmr 23:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed reference to OS girls

Doing a websearch for "OS girls" I found very little hits, of which a significant amount where Wikipedia mirrors, or not applicable due to for example not being about the OS-tans (for example about the female half of opposite sex twins) or not being used as a name.

Also searching for "OS少女" just yields Wikipedia mirrors and Chinese pages.

So in short, there's no (or too little) evidence of the OS-tans called "OS Girls" in the sense of a name. Wikipedia should restrict itself to documenting this phenomenon, not "feeding" it. Please don't add it back in until some popularity of the name "OS Girls" has been established.

Thank you, Shinobu 22:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

We are doomed

Well we probally are, a lot of the OS-tan related sites have gone down and artwork is getting even harder to find, The only sites that can cater to new artwork are sites like ostan-collections.net and that's not even enough. --SU182 23:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussion of changes that need to be made to articles, not general discussion areas.--Crossmr 23:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives