Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated Project-class)
Wikipe-tan head.png This page is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This is a project page and is not rated on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Wikipedia (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Wikimania[edit]

File:Wikipe_tan_wearing_a_bikini_by_Kasuga39.svg and its derivatives are used on this wiki and multiple others to illustrate the article Fan service. Multiple commentators at Wikimania have pointed to this image specifically as an example of a problematic culture of sexism on Wikipedia, and attendees have advocated its removal with extreme prejudice. Given this background, its inclusion in an already bloated gallery seems unjustifiable. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedians may advocate as they wish, but any free and quality image with a track record of mainspace utility is among the last that should be removed from the gallery. --erachima talk 19:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, per WP:CON off-wiki discussions about Wikipedia content are discouraged and do not override preexisting on-wiki discussions. That is because of the limited potential audience of such off-wiki discussions. —Farix (t | c) 19:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
"any free and quality image with a track record of mainspace utility is among the last that should be removed from the gallery" - this is untrue. I'm not suggesting here that the image should be deleted entirely, as it may be useful elsewhere, so the argument of "mainspace utility" is not relevant here. However, this page does not and should not include all images related to Wikipe-tan, or even all such images that are "quality". Wikipedia generally and this page in particular are not image repositories. Instead, what images are included on this page is a matter of editorial choices - and some of the choices made for inclusion thus far reflect poorly not only on the individual editors who made them but on the project as a whole.
"limited potential audience"? The discussion in question had more total and more diverse participants than any discussion on this page has ever had. Indeed, the local consensus here is in conflict with broader community standards and values. And even if that argument held weight, reverting simply because of a lack of consensus is discouraged. No one has yet presented any valid argument for including the image; given that consensus is based not on numbers but on arguments, we conclude that consensus is for removal. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Speak for yourself. What I concluded was that you're rudely dismissive and have made no argument for the image's removal other than personal taste. --erachima talk 20:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh? Your conclusions are incorrect, then. The inclusion of this image here is contrary to the values of the project, as already explained. It is also contrary to WP:IG; indeed, the present gallery should be significantly shrunk, and this would not negatively impact reader understanding. The arguments presented here for its inclusion are irrelevant, as already explained: mainspace utility, quality, and freedom are factors in retention or deletion of an image projectwide, but not its inclusion on a particular page. If you have other arguments to present, by all means, do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
It's a conclusion you keep reinforcing. As for the argument you've been dismissing out of hand, the entire reason that Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan exists is to acknowledge and provide convenient access to a set of free images which are potentially helpful. Whether the gallery should be exhaustive and by what standards it should be curated are of course up to editorial discretion, but the images which form the core of the gallery are the ones that have already proven their utility to either articles or projectspace. This means the fan service image --along with the one used on moe anthropomorphism, the mopping one, and a couple others with significant projectspace use-- indisputably belong on the page if it is to exist at all. --erachima talk 21:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Er, no, that's not correct. Wikimedia Commons exists to provide convenient access to a set of free images, and we provide a link to their set on this topic. Wikipedia, in contrast, is an encyclopedia. Projectspace pages like this one are not subject to as stringent a standard as mainspace pages, but they still aren't Commons or image categories, and they are not intended to substitute for either. We provide more value and reduce duplication of effort by keeping in mind both our scope and our mission. Whether the gallery should exist at all is an open question, but certainly it should be reduced in size. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I was going to make a comment about how Nikki might want to take it up with individual editors if it's being put to tacky userspace use, but I looked and that's not a thing that happens. There's only one editor using it in their userspace at all. I'm now utterly baffled how an image with one (1) userspace transclusion is being targeted as an example of cultural anything, and filing this incident squarely in the group of examples of Wikipedia's problematic culture of meddling. --erachima talk 19:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria is just bullying as usual. She's one of the reasons I took to simply lurking. There's no feasible reason to remove the image from this page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I've given several. You're welcome to contribute productively if you want to. Nikkimaria (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
All your arguments boils down to is that you don't like the images. However, you don't have a consensus to remove them form the page. Pointing to an off-wiki discussion is not a consensus. And yes, that is ALL you have done so far. If you keep up this disruptive editing, you will be reported to ANI. —Farix (t | c) 11:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep. There is no excuse for edit warring. --erachima talk 12:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to assume bad faith but Nikkimaria has been trying for months now to remove images based on little arguments, how many times are we going to go around this circle? Oh so there is no consensus here lets try Wikimedia next? Why cant you just accept the fact that the images are of fair use as they have been for years now and move on? (WP:DEADHORSE) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, this is in no way a fair use case, but rather appears motivated by personal prudishness. --erachima talk 02:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Months? Try over 3 years now. At some point, Nikkimaria should be topic banned from the page. —Farix (t | c) 03:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
There had been a long period of lapse between edits though, for whatever reason within the last few months the removals started up again with x and y reasons. Im all for improving a page here on Wikipedia but I do not see the valid reasoning behind the removals. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not see any valid reasoning presented to retain these images - "no consensus" is not a reason. Look, I didn't raise the issue of the image at Wikimania - it was featured (and criticized) in a presentation about alienation of women. This is a problem that needs to be addressed. A secondary problem is the continued use of this page as an image gallery - that's not the point of our project. Anyone interested in curating image galleries will of course be welcome over at Commons. But here, we don't include any and all images just because they are free and available (and we certainly don't include those whose freedom is questionable). Each image needs to be justifiable and to contribute in some way to the reader's understanding. In what way does this particular image do that? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
If you want to go image by image then please do it here, we have already been down that road and you have in the past removed images in mass with an edit summary that does not explain your actions at all or in some cases is an edit that appears minor: [1]. Doing things like this can be seen as bad faith towards others. You also keep pointing towards WP:DNRNC as if it were policy, the yang to that essay is WP:BRD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
We are for the moment talking about this one particular image, which has been criticized as contrary to the strategic plan and our project values and which does not appear to provide value to this page. Again, in what way do you suggest this image benefits the reader? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
If it was used the way you say, then you are correct Nikki: people digging up images that are used in an appropriate encyclopedic context and featured on one backend page and twisting them as fodder for a cause is indeed a problem that needs to be addressed. That sort of misrepresentation would completely color and negate the value of any associated discussion, which leaves the consensus quite clear indeed. --erachima talk 03:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone want to present an argument that use of this image here is policy- and guideline-compliant and benefits the reader? If no such argument is put forward, the image should and will be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, it is quite clear by the other comments on this page that you have no consensus to remove the image. There is no policy or guideline-based reasons to remove the image, and your arrangements all revolve around you not liking that particular image. This is pretty much crossing in disruptive behavior and you should probably be topic banned from this page as a result. —Farix (t | c) 12:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOT and WP:IUP both support the removal of this image and others from this page. I don't particularly dislike this particular image personally, but I agree with concerns from others that it contributes to a problematic culture here and is contrary to our mission and strategic plan, both of which are further reasons for its removal. Just as IDONTLIKEIT is not a good argument, nor is ILIKEIT. If you have good, policy- or guideline-based reasons to retain the image, by all means present them. Simply saying there is no consensus does not contribute to the formation of consensus for or against the image - this isn't a vote, and if no one can give any such reasons then it doesn't matter how many people want it kept. I'm very open to hearing reasons that I may have missed why the positives of the use of the image here outweigh the negatives. Do you have any to suggest? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
That's why we have WP:DISC and WP:NOTCENSORED, if we start removing images from Wikipedia because it offends a group of people then it goes against policies already put into place. I also question some of the policies and if they apply to Wikipedia main-space as this is not an article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
As WP:PROFANE makes clear, potentially objectionable content can be included when it serves an encyclopedic purpose, not just because we can. See in particular WP:GRATUITOUS. As used here, this image is not "protected" by NOTCENSORED or related policies/guidelines. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The image shows a woman in a swimsuit how the heck is that considered offensive or profane? Should we place this one up with the Bad images list? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Further the use of this image in this form is just restricted to this page. The other version used at Fan service remains as there are no non-free alternatives and I question even if the image can be condiered fan service because nothing is revieling or suggestive in the picture. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
You brought up the NOTCENSORED argument; those are simply the relevant policies rebutting that argument here. If you wish to challenge the use of the image in the various fan service articles, I suggest their talk pages might be appropriate venues for that. That would not serve as a justification for use of the image here. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

As after nearly a month there have been no arguments that this image is in compliance with the image use policy or other relevant policies/guidelines, and as its inclusion does not support Wikipedia's mission, I have re-removed the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because nobody cares to answer your calims, does not mean that there is concensus. The Yeti 07:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions" (WP:CON). If no one is willing or able to justify the inclusion of this image with reference to our policies/guidelines, then it will be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
That's why getting the WP:LASTWORD is that important amirite. _dk (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Just a thought but if a male counterpart to wikipe-tan were to be created (Wikipe-kun) for this one image then wouldn't all of these complaints go away? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Underbar, it would of course be far more productive if proponents of the image were to engage in the consensus-forming process rather than simply repeating that there is no consensus. Knowledgekid...not likely. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
‎Nikkimaria, just because you've refuse to put down the WP:STICK doesn't mean you have a consensus to remove the image. At least three other people have objected to you removing the image now. That should show you were consensus lies. —Farix (t | c) 17:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
TheFarix, consensus is not based on how many people agree or object to a change. No one objecting has yet presented any benefit to the image's inclusion that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, or that outweighs the noted negatives of the image. Again, do you have any to suggest? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: when were these discussions held? The last discussions on wikipe-tan being sexist I heard from came from 2011 and the discussion was met with mixed results for comments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
What discussions are you asking about? I'm referring to the discussion above, which began last month, not 2011. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am talking about the Multiple commentators at Wikimania. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Also last month. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yiddish version[edit]

Hello.. I started a discussion at the Hebrew Wikipedia about creating a Wikipe-tan page there, and since they didn't accept that, I decided to create a Yiddish version instead. I attempted to translate it from the Spanish version, which was shorter and simpler. You can check it out here: װיקיפּעדיע:וויקיפּע-טאַן

What are your thoughts? Lior (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Seeing that wikipe-tan is used on international versions of Wikipedia I do not see any harm in it. Wikipe-tan is not anything new and has been around Wikipedia for years, as well as her images used in a variety of ways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, sir, Look at the controversy that was caused when I brought her up at the heWiki Village Pump. I got a bunch of Strong Refusals (נגד חזק, נגד חזק, נגד חזק), and they even called the usage of her "useless, infantile and Foreign." Take a gander at the "Wikipe-tan at the Hebrew Wikipedia" section and see for yourself. That's why she's in וויקיפעדיע instead. Lior (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm hardly surprised, but it's none of our business. --erachima talk 07:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree, while it is sad that the Israli Wikipedia will not accept a wikipe-tan page as so many other international ones have what can we do about it? I for one can not speak Yiddish and can only say that wikipe-tan is Wikipedia's unofficial mascot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

A lil' question[edit]

I'm really surprised no one's ever asked this, but.. What kind of voice would Wikipe-tan have if she actually spoke? She kinda reminds me of a young Hatsune Miku, so, I sort of believe she would sound like one of those Vocaloid Personas.. Or maybe like the Akoya Sogi version of Mai Shiranui, I can't tell. What do you think Wikipe-tan would sound like? Lior (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM --erachima talk 20:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Houllich[edit]

This article is sexist

I think this article objectifies women, can it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houllich (talkcontribs) 22:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I moved this comment from the top of the page I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC).
I don't understand how it is sexist. Simply because it depicts a girl in a kawaii style? Powers T 12:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I guess some view any depictions of a female in a "submissive" role (such as a maid or other service role) to be objectionable and offensive. —Farix (t | c) 13:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there is a thing in the world that someone somewhere doesn't find offensive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)