Talk:Fan service

Reference 8

leads only to a search engine's home page... seems inappropriate Kanjo Kotr (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. It's completely gone—there's no archive. :( --an odd name 23:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Images, removal of

File:Wikipe tan wearing a bikini by Kasuga39.png. This image shows the model wearing an identifiable trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation. It's may or may not be a registered trademark - not sure exactly - but that doesn't matter: trademarks are created by use, and registration is just a legal nicety. The Wikipedia is a sub-entity of the Wikimedia foundation, but that doesn't matter at all. We would need an OTRS permission from Wikimedia to use this. Imagine if the model was sporting the logo of American Airlines or IBM or whatever - would that be OK? No, it wouldn't, and it's exactly the same deal here. Deleted.

File:Kogaru1.jpg. This image is very probably under copyright. The person uploading it claimed it was his own work, but it's very likely that he was lying. [redacted] It's copyrighted work (most probably) by a banned user, end of story. Deleted. Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A mostly obscured puzzle piece is not an identifiable trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation. In fact, the Wikimedia Foundation does not have trademarks on individual puzzle pieces, only the "puzzle globe" as a whole. As for the second image, so long as the free-use license and authorship is clear, then the image is perfectly allowable, even if the editor has since been banned. —Farix (t | c) 11:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Not an identifiable trademark? I knew what entity it represented right away. You knew what entity it represented right away. The artist knew what entity it represented right away. Most readers knew what entity it represented right away. So how is not an identifiable trademark? If I replace her earrings with a partial but fully identifiable view of a mark associated with Apple or Boeing or Google will it be OK then? Of course not.
2. See User:Tom Morris/Why Women Don't Edit Wikipedia. This sort of thing is objectively destructive to the project, in case you haven't been paying attention. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a freshman boy's fraternity house. I'll assume good faith and assume that you simply haven't considered this, but you don't have that excuse any more, so I suggest that you let this one go. Deleted per per first point and per WP:IAR on second point, either of which is entirely sufficient. Herostratus (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Category:Wikipedia puzzle piece icons contains numerous such images, and they are not marked as being trademarked. The Wikimedia Foundation's trademark policy doesn't mention puzzle pieces either. But even if it is a trademark of the Foundation, has there been a case where the Foundation has said we're not allowed to use a particular trademark on Wikipedia? The Foundation must surely be aware of Wikipe-tan by now, and I have never seen them raise this issue. Want the image removed? There's a deletion discussion for this image, go there. Reach Out to the Truth 15:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

But Commons:Category:Wikipedia puzzle piece icons images are not used in articles. And if they are used in articles, they are not used in ways that degrade the reputation of the identified entity. And if they are used in that way, point me to them and we'll delete those also. The fact that Commons will host essentially anything has little bearing on what is appropriate for articles in the Wikipedia. Herostratus (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• How it's "degrade the reputation of the identified entity"? The image just show girl in swimming suit, and descript that bathing suit is typical fan service. It's totally neutral. L-Zwei (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The image was kept fellowing a debate in the anime/manga project. Herostratus doesn't give a fuck to Wikipedia as a collaborative work? --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a larger consensus that agrees the image is appropriate here and that that given remarks on another wikipe-tan image discussion this appears to be an attempt to simply remove wikipe-tan from Wikipedia because of personal dislike for her.陣内_Jinnai 21:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Since it's been shown that Wikimedia Foundation does not claim any trademark or copyright on various puzzle pieces, then using said argument to remove the Wikipe-tan image is bogus. So is the claim that illustrating the subject of an article "drives off women" equally bogus and also condescending of women. The Wikipe-tan image is under CC-SA 2.5 and is therefor free to used. While I wouldn't mind a better image, as the Wikipe-tan images is not a very high quality image, that doesn't mean that Wikipe-tan should be removed before a replacement image is created and uploaded. —Farix (t | c) 21:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see this as a rights issue at all, but as a matter of quality product, it would seem better and less-incestuous to have a non-wikipe-tan example.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed to that, File:Kogaru1.jpg is a better example than the wikipe-tan one here, this page is small and does not need two images. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree too. We could use more images, but as Wikipe-tan is released under license for reuse, we don't have to worry about complying with WP:NFCC. We can have multiple images.陣内_Jinnai 02:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Remove wikipe-tan. This image implies a false connection between Wikimedia and the topic. There is no connection. Out it goes. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

  ....April Fools was yesterday, not today. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)]

  It is original research to call the image "fan service". No such label has been applied to the image by the artist or by a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  WP:OI doesn't require that as it would violate the one of the very essences of why WP:COMMONS was set up and why we have WP:NFCC policy. I would do so because requiring it would basically be a direct violation of one of pillars, WP:CIRCULAR.陣内_Jinnai 15:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  Your arguments are unintelligible to me. NFCC does not tell us to use this image. CIRCULAR does not tell us to use this image. WP:OI does not tell us that the image is "fan service"; in fact, it says that image caption should not "introduce unpublished ideas", meaning that no source has published the idea that this image is fan service. The guideline continues by saying this is "the core reason behind the WP:NOR policy." I hold that using the image in this article is not allowed per WP:NOR. If a bathing suit-wearing person is said to be fan service, find an image of a bathing suit-wearing person which has been called fan service by reliable sources. Otherwise, the reader knows quite well what a bathing suit looks like on a person, and we do not need this image. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  Frankly, your argumentation is only persuade the persuaded not rallying the opposing editors to your view. Even more, i think the more it goes and more entrenched are your opposing editors to your view, generating more acrimony and distrust between editors. So no one is going to get out unscathed on this one discussion. Other than that i find your argumentation weak and lame, an unconvincing and poor excuse to remove this image. You don't have your consensus to get this image removed from this article thus you will get reverted if you take any unilateral action. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  My "weak and lame" argument about WP:NOR has not been answered successfully by anyone, so it still stands as the most pillar-oriented reason for not using the image here in this article. You called my argument names rather than countering it with an opposing guideline. So which of us is using a "weak and lame" argument? Your threat to revert if the image is removed goes against this essay and fails the test of WP:BURDEN, where disputed material is not used if there is no consensus to put it in. At WP:CONSENSUS, the guideline describes how we should "try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense." I have used reasons based on policy and sources, and I assumed that common sense apply as well once the policy reasons were clear. You have responded by saying that my reasoned arguments are "generating more acrimony and distrust", which I fail to see. I have not attacked anyone personally or tried to hide my motives, so acrimony and distrust are not in it. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  I also throw at your face Wikipedia is a collaborative work. You have to remember that people participating to this discussion are not n00b editors so when one side uses every single available and some made up arguments, policies, guidelines to get ride of this image, well the other side tends to toss AGF to the toilet because their experience tell them so. In others words you are neither persuading me nor also the usual contributors of WP:ANIME project (see WT:ANIME#Wikipe-tan again).

• Keep for now per project consensus - image is serving a valid purpose and has been discussed recently. The argument about the trademark infringement makes no sense, Wikipedia cannot infringe upon itself. The argument that it is "objectively destructive to the project" has only been supported by subjective arguments. You would need objective data to make such a case, not just speculation. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)