File talk:Wikipe-tan full length.png/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
God this is creepy
|
Grown men drawing and enjoying pictures of seven year old girls wearing skirts. Yep. Perfectly normal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.251.96 (talk • contribs) 3:50, 16 May 2007
Creepy by 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 times.75.26.201.118 23:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Well you know the Japanese. They are CRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZZZZY!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.58.196.120 (talk • contribs) 05:10, July 5, 2007 |
- I don't see what's so creepy about this picture. It's pure Japanese culture, which has emigrated over to the English-speaking world. So if you want to complain about drawings of cute little girls, complain about anime and Japan in general -- don't just do it here. And especially don't complain about this particular image, which is definitely on the extremely innocent end of the spectrum and devoid of any sexual characteristics, when you consider the full potential range of anime and its ambiguous sexualization of youth.
The Reason Why this is featured
Hello. I've been using Wikipedia for 3 years now (Anonymously with hundreds of IPs actually). Wikipedians have agreed to feature this photo in the Main Page ( See WP:FPC ). If you didn't want this photo featured in the first place, you should have opposed tha candidacy and add reason why you're opposed too. 50% of Active members NEVER editted the FPC page. Ofcourse, I'm not allowed to vote... :-(. I don't want to join either. I have e-mailed users, asking them why they have left. The picture.... It's quite impressive actually. 194.46.249.12 16:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Original Research Policy Violation
Everyone knows you can't create works for Wikipedia. This is a policy violation. --Gbleem 23:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- You can't do original research for Wikipedia, yes, but that does not mean you can't create images for use on Wikipedia articles. If that were so then hundreds of charts, diagrams, drawings, etc would have to be removed and wouldn't be allowed. -- Ned Scott 23:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- In fact, the policy itself specifically states that images are except from the no original research policy, WP:OR#Original images. -- Ned Scott 23:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Featured?
Why the hell is this a featured pic? Superior1 01:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Because it's a good, free-use, example of moé anthropomorphism, and a majority of editors with good rationales agreed that the image met all of the requirements. -- Ned Scott 02:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Neither "moé anthropomorphism" nor this crude illustration are notable; it is kind of embarassing to have them "featured".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.164.114 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 2 October 2006
KAWAII!!!!!!--293.xx.xxx.xx 01:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Did anyone consider WP:ASR? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- You are looking at ASR out of context. Look at the nutshell summary: "Wikipedia is free content. To ease reusability, never allow the text of an article to assume that the reader is viewing it at Wikipedia, and try to avoid even assuming that the reader is viewing the article at a website. There may also be stylistic issues with using phrases such as this article unnecessarily."
- The image and description is about something based on Wikipedia, which is different than making a reference that says "this article is on Wikipedia". Being based on or inspired by Wikipedia is not uncommon, and this image does not present the types of problems that ASR tries to avoid. -- Ned Scott 02:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this is an embarassment, both because it is self-referential and also because of the nature of the picture which is, frankly, a bit weird. Cartoons of little girls in short skirts? Hmm. Robotforaday 14:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- That is definitely not short. Obviously, you have never been to my high school. ~ Flameviper 17:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- You can't just apply the term "self-referential" wherever you feel like. Read WP:ASR and Ned Scott's comment immediately above yours. This is not a situation we need to avoid, whether you want to avoid it or not. Your own personal taste for what is a "good/bad-looking" picture has nothing to do with if it is illustrative, and so counts for nothing but a vote (ie, nothing). --BRIAN0918">BRIAN 20:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- In fact, I can use the term self-referential wherever I feel it is appropriate, because, suprising as it might be to people immersed in wikiworld, "self referential" is not simply a policy term coined by people here, rather, it is a recognisable criticism of anything that has got too self-involved. Obviously, people who participate in a community think that community is inherantly notable and everything surrounding it is of the public interest. But with a little perspective, you will see that this is not true. The main page is a page for all to access, not just members of the wikipedia community, and that should be borne in mind when we're deciding what should appear there. As for whether I found the image good/bad looking, that was not really an issue, my point was primarily that the image is distasteful and brings wikipedia into disrepute. You may think looking at pictures of little girls in short skirts is "cute". A lot of other people do not, and frankly I'm inclined to agree with them. Robotforaday 10:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone thought that everyone would agree on the featured picture, just the majority. Also, just because we're Wikipedia also means we shouldn't ignore Wikipedia as it's own topic. In this case it wasn't even a topic, but something that inspired some art. It's a featured picture because it's our best example that is free-use of such art, and it just so happens to have been inspired by Wikipedia. It could have been inspired by something else, and it wouldn't have made a difference. To ignore it because it was inspired by Wikipedia is no better than including it because it was inspired by Wikipedia. Don't make it a factor either way. -- Ned Scott 20:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- In fact, I can use the term self-referential wherever I feel it is appropriate, because, suprising as it might be to people immersed in wikiworld, "self referential" is not simply a policy term coined by people here, rather, it is a recognisable criticism of anything that has got too self-involved. Obviously, people who participate in a community think that community is inherantly notable and everything surrounding it is of the public interest. But with a little perspective, you will see that this is not true. The main page is a page for all to access, not just members of the wikipedia community, and that should be borne in mind when we're deciding what should appear there. As for whether I found the image good/bad looking, that was not really an issue, my point was primarily that the image is distasteful and brings wikipedia into disrepute. You may think looking at pictures of little girls in short skirts is "cute". A lot of other people do not, and frankly I'm inclined to agree with them. Robotforaday 10:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
...Why the hell is this a featured pic? amen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.45.99 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 2 October 2006
- You've provided your vote. Now back it up with rationale. Otherwise, you haven't said anything. --BRIAN0918 20:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
What??? since when is there a featured pic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmacgrady1 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 2 October 2006
English, anyone?
collapsed due to being a racist and fairly dumb question Dronebogus (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
Forgive my asking, but isn't this the English Wikipedia? Then what's with all that (presumably) Japanese gibberish?--Lairor 17:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC) |
- It's a Japanese art style, not an American or British or other English-speaking art style, so Japanese "gibberish" (they do actually mean things, so gibberish is needlessly insulting) is perfectly acceptable. —Cuiviénen 18:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
because this isnt just japanese... this is now a Cross-cultural established internet meme — Preceding unsigned comment added by KratosAurion (talk • contribs) 14:08, 2 October 2006
- We are English as in the language used in the text, NOT in the topics we cover. -- Ned Scott 21:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Wait... what the hell?
Is this supposed to be...Wikipedia? Um...what? ~ Flameviper 17:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- She's our mascot.
FP delist discussion
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Wikipe-tan full length. -- Ned Scott 00:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
