Jump to content

Talk:Fan service/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Edit request - adding information

Please add the following text to the end of the lead. "Shoujo manga series may eroticise its female leads as fanservice aimed at a potential male audience.[1]" --Malkinann (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that should be the other way round. Shoujo manga is aimed at female readers, and eroticises its male leads, e.g. in the bishonen style. --JN466 01:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
While that happens too (and we have sources for that), this source says "For instance, a shôjo story about a girl who finds herself in ancient China might include sexy images of her designed to appeal to the more prurient interests of male fans. Such ‘fan service’ is thought to draw male readers or viewers to shôjo genres." Which I've boiled down to what I said there.--Malkinann (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Both are true, especially when a work is adapted to anime. I will note the reverse is also true; shonen series having bishionen characters to draw female readers, fe Black Butler. Finding a RS for that may be a bit harder though.陣内Jinnai 02:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm really sorry, I missed the "potential". This is about the crossover aspect, where girl manga try to appeal to male readers as well. The sentence would fit better after "Male homoeroticism, such as accidental kisses, is a common feature of fan service for females, and has been described as "easier to get away with" in terms of censorship than fanservice for males." We could add, after that sentence, "Shoujo manga series may eroticise its female leads as well for crossover appeal, as fan service aimed at a potential male audience.[2] --JN466 10:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I could go for that change. Another piece of information I would like to include comes from Anime Explosion - Gbooks. Fanservice can also be a hint of eroticism, such as an upskirt "glimpse of a character's panties".[3] --Malkinann (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Lamarre, Thomas (2006). "Platonic Sex: Perversion and Shôjo Anime (Part One)". Animation. 1 (1): 45–59. doi:10.1177/1746847706065841.
  2. ^ Lamarre, Thomas (2006). "Platonic Sex: Perversion and Shôjo Anime (Part One)". Animation. 1 (1): 45–59. doi:10.1177/1746847706065841.
  3. ^ Drazen, Patrick (October 2002). "Plastic Little: Not What You Think" in Anime Explosion! The What, Why & Wow of Japanese Animation Berkeley, California: Stone Bridge Press p.329 ISBN 1-880656-72-8.

Further readings

Please add the following as further readings, I have given google books links to justify their inclusion. The "play, creativity and digital cultures" book in particular looks promising. --Malkinann (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

De-activated edit-request

I've de-activated the edit protected request template for now. Please provide specific instructions for what you want changed (ie please change X to Y) and provide evidence of consensus for the changes. Thanks, Woody (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please add the following information to the end of the lead. "Shoujo manga series may eroticise its female leads as well for crossover appeal, as fan service aimed at a potential male audience.[1] Fanservice can also be a hint of eroticism, such as an upskirt "glimpse of a character's panties".[2]" Please also add the following three texts to the further readings section:
Part of the problem with this article is that the text isn't as good as it could be. Adding reliably-sourced information to the article and further readings can hopefully aid in understanding and may clarify the image issues. I would regard the tweaking of the initial request, and the subsequent silence, as demonstrating consensus. --Malkinann (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 Done Woody (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Baseball meaning of fanservice

Please add the following: "Japanese baseball teams provide fan service events during baseball games such as dance shows, singing the team song or a performance by the team mascot.[3][4]" Please place it after "all can be considered fanservice as they are specifically aimed to please the fans of any given show.". --Malkinann (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ Lamarre, Thomas (2006). "Platonic Sex: Perversion and Shôjo Anime (Part One)". Animation. 1 (1): 45–59. doi:10.1177/1746847706065841.
  2. ^ Drazen, Patrick (October 2002). "Plastic Little: Not What You Think" in Anime Explosion! The What, Why & Wow of Japanese Animation Berkeley, California: Stone Bridge Press p.329 ISBN 1-880656-72-8.
  3. ^ Yoshino, K. (2011). "Happiness and heart rate response: A case of fan services at japanese professional baseball games". Natural Science. 03 (3): 255–258. doi:10.4236/ns.2011.33032.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  4. ^ http://asbbs.org/files/2010/ASBBS_%20Proceedings_13th_Intl_Meeting.pdf
Not done for now: Please seek consensus for changes before placing {{editprotected}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
How is adding reliably-sourced information so controversial? --Malkinann (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Crazymonkey1123, 21 April 2011

===History=== should be changed to ==History== as it has no level two header above it and should be a level two header.

Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T/S 23:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Done Dabomb87 (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to use a version of the bikini image without the puzzle pieces?

Would it be acceptable to modify the File:Wikipe tan wearing a bikini by Kasuga39.png image to remove the hair pieces and use that modified version on this page? --Malkinann (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with the puzzle pieces again? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
With or without the wikipedia symbols, how do you get around the "original research" aspect of this image? It was invented by a wikipedian, right? So how can it be claimed as an example of something, unless an independent source affirms that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The puzzle pieces have been regarded as allying Wikipedia with the concept of fanservice. The image is, at its base, an original image of a manga-style girl in a bikini, in a cheesecake pose. Both manga-style girls in cheesecake poses and manga-style girls in bikinis have been discussed as examples of fanservice in reliable sources. As it is undesirable to use a non-free image in this article, I am asking if a hypothetical non-hairpieced version of this image would be acceptable. --Malkinann (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
You're talking in general terms. What's your source confirming that this particular drawing is, in fact, an example of the genre that it alleges to be an example of? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The real question should be does this image introduce unpublished ideas or arguments? It is stated that fan service is "material that is designed to amuse or excite the audience with especially derived content. Long full shots of robots in mecha shows, sexual elements, long fight scenes or violence, all can be considered fanservice as they are specifically aimed to please the fans of any given show" Does this image fall under this published idea? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
It would be a stretch, as that definition is rather vague. I could argue that Robby the Robot just as easily fits the definition. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
In some instances, using Robby in an unrelated work could be fan service. Especially if the appearance is coupled with Leslie Nielsen or Anne Francis. —Farix (t | c) 13:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, has any wikipe-tan image ever actually been used in one of these Japanese cartoon shows? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
No and no but seeing the definition seems to be so vauge why wouldnt the wikipe-tan image fall under the published definition then? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
It is my understanding that original images which contain the general elements of the genre do not have to have sources. You do not need to cite that the sky is blue, after all. It would not illustrate unpublished ideas or arguments, as a hypothetical modification of this image without the puzzle pieces would simply be a manga style girl in a bikini, posing in a pinup/cheesecake style. This style of image is cited to reliable sources as being typical fanservice. --Malkinann (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
This is not a case of the blue sky, which everyone with functional color vision can see and knows about. The average American has probably never heard of these genres, let alone wikipe-tan. Where is a non-wikipedia source that affirms that wikipe-tan is, in fact, representative of this genre? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you believe it is unrepresentative of the subject? I think it is clearly a fair example of fan-service, but I doubt there are reliable sources to prove it; but at the same time, if no one disputes the factual basis for inclusion, I don't think it should be removed. The reliable source rule is intended to resolve factual disputes, but if there isn't actually a dispute as to fact, I don't think the rule should be used to remove content merely because people dislike it. Monty845 04:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
If there's no reliable sources that show that it's an example then it should be removed if challenged. The point here is that people are disputing the factual basis for inclusion If there are no other fair use photos to use that are undisputed, then the article has to go without. RxS (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
We do have the artist's statement that the image is fan service, so it can be used as an example. You don't need an additional source that states the image is an example of fan service any more than you need additional sources that state File:Sunset 2007-1.jpg, File:Knysnasunset.jpg, and File:MarsSunset.jpg are examples of sunsets. (How do we independently verify through reliable sources that those images are sunsets and not sunrises?) If you make it a requirement that every original image needs a source stating that the image is an example, then it would eliminate most if not all original images on Wikipedia and WP:OI will have to be removed as a policy. —Farix (t | c) 13:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Are there reliable, published sources that confirm the artists statement? If not then it can't be used. If the usage of a sunset photo is disputed, then it should be removed also. That's the key here. Those photos are not challenged at the moment, the image at issue here is being challenged and cannot be used until more referencing is done. RxS (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Than all OI should be removed then. —Farix (t | c) 16:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
If knowledgeable editors agree that the image otherwise conforms to the conventions of fan service, using a derived image without the puzzle pieces would be fine; I would not object to using such an image. On the other hand, now that we are looking at this, the best thing for the article and the reader would be to identify a famous piece of fan service – the kind of example that spontaneously pops into a manga or anime fan's head when they hear the expression fan service – and upload that in Wikipedia with a fair-use rationale. Using an actual notable example is more informative for the reader than a mock example "in the style of".
In addition, it would be good to identify both an example aimed at male readers, and a shojo example aimed at female readers. --JN466 01:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there a proper example that could be linked to? There's no rule that says this article, or any article, has to have an embedded illustration. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
And is licenesed under CC or in public domain? If not, then by default the Wikipe-tan image being a free image that doesn't introduce any new or unpublished ideas trumps it because it is a legit freely reusable alternative. As far as I know, since the term only goes back to the 1970s, nothing that would be widely known enough would have fallen into public domain and other than characters like Wikipe-tan, ie a fan-made characters released under CC license for free reuse, nothing would qualify; if you used something older, you'd be running into the problem of potenitally introducing a new idea, that fan service predates the timeperiod shown by RSes.陣内Jinnai 02:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed per WP:OI - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipe-tan is free, but she really doesn't illustrate fan service in anime and manga, which is what the article is about. --JN466 10:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The subject of the article is fan service, not "fan service in anime and manga" only. It undisputed by the artist's own statement that the image is fan service. —Farix (t | c) 13:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I'll post my drawing of Robby the Robot, and declare that it's fan service on the grounds that I say it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Only if the article states that images, and not just cameos, of Robby the Robot are a form of fan service. But that statement is likely to be challenged. You may be able to source that cameos are a form of fan service, but not just any image of Robby the Robot. One cameo you may be able to source as fan service is the brief appearance of Boba Fett in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope Special Edition. —Farix (t | c) 14:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
You need to find a source other than the author, i.e. external to wikipedia that confirms wikipe-tan is indeed part of this genre. Otherwise it's "original research" and cannot be allowed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
No you don't. If you did, then every non-historic CC image on Wikipedia would have to be removed.陣内Jinnai 15:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Only if challenged, which this one is. RxS (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
So you are saying that every non-historic CC image on Wikipedia if challenged would be removed? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The only reason this image is being challenged is because the editors challenging it don't like Wikipe-tan. If it was any other character, then they would be challenging it in the first place. —Farix (t | c) 16:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I like Wikipe-tan just fine. Cute and harmless. And totally a wikipedia invention. Not suitable in an article about anything other than Wikipedia itself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
"Not suitable in an article" is an entirely different topic and has nothing to do with requiring sources for original images. It is also further proof that the real dispute has nothing to do with sourcing or original research, but whether people like or dislike the image in the article as an illustration. —Farix (t | c) 16:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not suitable in the article because it's original research. You can't just claim something you invented is a member of specific genre just because you say it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Then all original images without a reliable sources are original research. The problem with you arrangement is that it poses a great deal of harm to Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. While that argument may be convenient for those who want to remove Wikipe-tan's image from this article, the same argument can be applied to all other original images, requiring them to be removed from thousands of articles, thus leaving most articles un-illustratable. —Farix (t | c) 17:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Not so. If someone posts a picture of Tom Hanks in an article, then it's fully valid - unless someone questions whether it really is Tom Hanks. Same situation here. And this isn't a photograph, it's a drawing. It's totally original research. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
In this case you should read WP:OI, which states: [...] Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. [...] --Niabot (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Fine. Show us the publication that verifies Wikipe-tan as being a part of this genre. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Do i need to argue with you, if you call "Fan Service" an genre? You could use any figure in the right context to illustrate this term. Wikipe-tan, some OS-tan, QB, Lala or whatever. In the context of Wikipe-tan, which is usualy not seen in a swimsuit. There could be an better image for this term, but it suits it better than any other picture currently available. --Niabot (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Prove it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The proof is the definition of the term itself. Read the article - no, read his sources and get some knowledge. --Niabot (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The definition in the article says, "...material that is designed to amuse or excite the audience with especially derived content." First, that's about as weaselly a definition as I've ever seen. Robby the Robot or Godzilla could just as equally qualify. Now about the "audience" part... when has Wikipe-tan ever appeared in any Japanese movie theaters? I'm betting never. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I think I see where you're coming from now. The way the article is currently phrased, I think you believe fan service can only exist within the context of an anime or manga? If its not inside one an anime or manga its not fan service. Am I correct is saying that's what you believe the article is currently saying?陣内Jinnai 17:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there any requirement for her to be seen in a japanese movie theater? Actually most characters weren't seen in movie theaters. But now you could try to prove it. At least you agree now, that it could be any kind of character, depicted in an unsual/amusing way, which would include Wikipe-tan as well. Somehow its getting hilarious... --Niabot (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I still don't see how Wikipe-tan, or any other original character created by a wikipedian can be argued to represent something notable. You can put her on every bloomin' page in Wikipedia if you want (which would be fine by me), and that still won't make her notable except as a Wikipedia symbol. Wikipedia is not alowed as a reference for facts, as you must surely know. Unless someone outside of Wikipedia confirms that Wikipe-tan qualifies as a type of "fan service", I don't see how you can use it this way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
When will the time come, that you will understand that this has nothing to do with the fact if it is Wikipe-tan or some other character? There is no need for any reference mentioning this figure as "fan service" (you wrote it this way ;-) ). It's only related to the fact: How, in which situation a figure is drawn. You seem to have absolutely no clue what this term is about and for what it is used. I don't feel the need to discuss any further. You disqualified yourself. --Niabot (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Then post a free photo of Carmen Electra, and it will be equally valid. Just assume I'm an average member of the public who has stumbled across this article knowing nothing about the subject, but also knowing that wikipedia is supposed to rely on verifiable sources. Where is the verifiable source confirming that this illustration, or any illustration you might come up with, is valid for the article? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
And by the way, the article is not very well written. It would help if it explained just what "fan service" actually means. When I hear "fan service", I think it means they turned on the air conditioner in the theater. The article appears to be trying to say something without quite saying it. The invalid illustration is the least of the article's problems. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The quality of the article has been slowly, but steadily improving; Wikipedian articles don't need to be built in a day. The FPP has caused a slowdown in that improvement temporarily.
As to your point about Carmen Electra, if western media uses the term for movies from Hollywood and it can be referenced by independent reliable secondary sources, then yes, that image could be an appropriate addition.陣内Jinnai 21:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Next

This has been debated now since March 14th and I really do not see these discussions going anywhere what should come next here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Bring the issue to WT:OR and WT:IUP and tell them we are in need of a there opinions to resolve this ongoing dispute. To help make certain it gets a response making it clear how much time this is wasting and has gotten the page FPPed. Both of them should be querried to reply here and both so that we can:
  1. Clarrify if general text is all that is nessasary for OI or whether it must mention the character or image specifically
  2. Make certain whether the this qualifies as a free replacement to any non-free images
That its an image of Wikipe-tan doesn't matter in this context and whether or not it promotes Wikipedia is ireelivant and probably benificial per WP:NPOV since, it only promotes Wikipedia. However, if you feel the need to clarrify that, go and ask at NPOV too.陣内Jinnai 22:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I've already brought the general topic of whether original images need sources at WT:NOR#Do original images require a source?. —Farix (t | c) 00:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
For the discussion on this talk page, try linking to a similar image on the internet that is known to be an example of fan service, and discuss whether or not the original image in this wikipedia article illustrates or introduces unpublished ideas or arguments that are not in the similar image that is linked to. If the original image doesn't, then it's allowed.[1] 75.47.148.255 (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • If people are insisting on an image here, they could use the other image categorized as "fan service" on the Commons: File:Anime Girl.svg. That would at least remove the Wikipe-tan factor. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    • That's precisely what I proposed above. As Baseball Bugs has found, editors here simply don't seem to understand that they can't invent something in Wikipedia and then present it as a representative encyclopedic example of something outside Wikipedia. --JN466 00:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeking a resolution

To resolve this, who thinks we should use File:Anime Girl.svg instead? If you object, please explain why. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

  • What are the grounds for saying this isn't fan service? That sounds like OR. My understanding of "fan service," looking around at what sources exist for it, is that it's basically "eye candy: "scenes that exist only to gratify the wishes of the fans," according to Robin Brenner, one of the article's sources. He continues: "This often means a chance to ogle a female character in various states of undress or in a position of 'pinup' images of favourite characters: anything from slapstick 'accidental exposure' to sexy maid outfits (Schodt 1996). The older the intended audience, the more explicit fan service will be" (Brenner, Robin E. Understanding manga and anime. Libraries Unlimited, 2007, p. 88). The proposed image fits that definition just fine, without the added complication of it also illustrating Wikipe-tan. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
So if this image meets the definition why would the wikipe-tan image not again? Is it because the wikipe-tan is orginal research or is it because it is wikipe-tan? Saying the File:Anime Girl.svg is indeed fan service for the image could be WP:OR as well. Dont get me wrong I do think a third option image would be good too (Why I asked niabot to make one) but with what is being said here it is sounding like anyone can challenge an image that is an orginal upload from wikipeda, call it WP:OR and it then gets removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Just a side comment but I would also propose that WP:OI either get an overhaul or be rewritten as it is very broad on what uploaded images do and do not promote unpublished ideas per Farix's comment on the sunrise pictures. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipe-tan looks like fan service too, but there's an additional factor of her being linked to WP, and that additional factor has triggered objections. Therefore, it makes sense to use the image without that extra issue. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Then perhaps Malkinann's suggestion would be for the best. Since the puzzle pieces are an integral facet of Wikipe-tan's identity, then removing them will basically create an entirely different character. If it doesn't make enough of a difference, then the hair style could always be changed. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who she is. If it was a character from an unknown doujinshi released under CC, would we be crying "No! You're promoting that doujinshi!" Of course not. The same standard should apply here to Wikipe-tan or anyone else. Furthermore, the introduction of an image does not invalidate the removal of the current Wikipe-tan image. I am all for additional images, including examples of other types of fan service. However, since Wikipe-tan is CC-licensed, with the exception of WP:NOTIMAGE there is not reason to remove her because we have another and we are far from making this page an image repository.陣内Jinnai 16:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I was just suggesting a way to satisfy the opposition. Consensus doesn't work by finding out who's right or who's wrong. We need both sides leaving the negotiating table with a sense of satisfaction or resolution. I prefer the Wikipe-tan image as well, but consensus isn't a contest of which side is more adamant. I suggest reading the first few sentences of Consensus decision-making. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - neither image, if we accept the arguments above, is unquestionably "fan service", although I think both images could illustrate the concept. However, this image suffers from displaying a girl who is arguably underage (although clearly post-pubescent), in an overtly sexual depiction, so all else being equal, I'd much rather go with the image which displays the concept equally well, but which doesn't risk offense to the same extent. - Bilby (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support using the anime girl. It's original content and represents an adult woman, which clears any problems. Alternatively, kindly ask Kasuga (the creator of Wikipetan) to draw a new character in a fan service pose (he drew the Lolicon picture to illustrate the page, he can do this too). Billy Bread (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is drawn by me. Another possibility would be the image to right. At least Sukumizu (even if this older types aren't in practical, real use anymore) are often part of fan service scenes. I was also asked if i could draw an image more suitable for fan service. So long i would find any of this images acceptable, even so they are not hitting it directly in the heart. --Niabot (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I knew you had that other example of a picture and would not mind using that if it does qualify as being under fan service. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The image on the right seems more like a lolicon image than fan service. --JN466 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Supports and opposes for using the anime girl image instead of Wikipe-tan are level on this talk page. In the recent ANI discussion, consensus was against using Wikipe-tan. As of now, the anime girl image is the best alternative we have. It is also, unlike Wikipe-tan, at least a little sexy.
  • So I propose we change the image. Having said that, the image still does not seem as representative of fan service as it could be. Fan service sequences like the girl climbing out of a swimming pool at 0:04–0:05 in this youtube video don't rely on transparent clothing and such, but simply a close up of a girl's bikini, drawn in traditional pin-up style. Long-term, we"d be better off using an image like that. --JN466 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I find Anime_Girl.svg more cute than sexy. Most of the image's emphasis is on the character's face (eyes, hair, and bow). Even the character's hand stands out more than her body. The face shouts "cute" rather than "sexy" to me. As I've suggested previously, a subtle smile or smirk (like the one seen in the video sequence Jayen466 pointed out) would be better. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
    • With notice respect to the ANI discussion, there were a number who also had no comment on this image and also consensus there they noted was specifically not relevant to the Wikipe-tan image because it didn't violate any policy. The other image had an advert for Kogaru Diaries and had some other elements about it that made it questionable use the article as well as possibly hosting on commons. Nothing like that exists for the Wikipe-tan image so its not in any way comparable and as such, while we can note the consensus there, it should not be used as way to dictate consensus here with regard to the Wikipe-tan image.陣内Jinnai 17:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support File:Anime Girl.svg because it is more professionally drawn and more faithful to the concept of fan-service. As a bonus, File:Anime Girl.svg is not aggrandizement for an original self-referential brand that is controversial for its lolicon implications. Quigley (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per my previous comment. Anime_Girl.svg isn't fan service. If a new image can't be drawn, or if there isn't anyone willing to modify the Wikipe-tan image, then the image that best portrays fan service (Wikipe-tan) should be used. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Question — Are fan service images typically of unnamed characters that aren't icons of any particular organization? If so, then Wikipe-tan would be less appropriate as an example from this consideration. 75.47.143.192 (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    Well, I think the main problem is that there's really two separate 'types' of fan service. One 'type' is an insertion of something popular into an unrelated work (like a Bender doll being shown in The Simpsons), or perhaps something in a series subtly referencing another (to keep to The Simpsons, like Homer's Mr. Plow jacket shown in his closet). The other 'type', which is mainly only found in anime but could theoretically be called found (and called such) else where is just stuff like panty shots, swimsuit episodes, etc etc. So a Wikipe-tan in a swimsuit fits the second type fine, the first one not so much. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    Well there is also a 3rd type not really touched upon much, but still noted. It would be those "long full shots of mecha" in a Gundam show. Its not really in the vein of panty shots as those can appeal to broader audiance (males in general) whereas mecha shot really would only appeal to mecha fans.陣内Jinnai 17:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment – For a better idea about what fan service is, I recommend reading the TV Tropes article and going through the examples. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It has been over a month now and nothing has been resolved I think we should just move on, in fact File:Kogaru1.jpg was kept over at the commons as it was stated to be "in use by other wiki projects". So other than a few new images being proposed there has not been consensus on anything and things are the same as when this chat first started. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The consensus is against using File:Kogaru1.jpg on this article and (judging from the AN/I thread), the rest of the English Wikipedia. I don't have the time or energy to bring up the issue at all those foreign language wikis. If I were an artist, I would've drew a replacement. Since there isn't any consensus or agreement here, we're probably better off removing the page protection and moving on. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Thats true something did come out of this on not using the Kogaru Image, I agree on that and also feel that full protection should be removed. If another replacement image comes along that most editors feel describes fan service better than the wikipe-tan image we have now then fine but for now lets leave as is and move on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with File:Anime Girl.svg is that it completely lacks any context as to why this particular ecchi scene is fan service. While ecchi scenes are used as fan service, they require some sort of context, such as the male character accidentally walking in on a female character changing cloths or bathing. Without such context the scene isn't fan service, but plain erotica. —Farix (t | c) 14:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In this point i have to agree with you. If you have a good idea what kind of scene (a rough sketch) would be suitable, i would draw such an image within a week or so. --Niabot (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
We do have reliable sources stating that showing shirtless men in 'enticing poses' is considered fanservice. Also, male-male accidental kisses.  ;) Just saying. --Malkinann (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Nice to have them. But i would prefer a more common theme to that everyone involved could agree. So that it can rightfully be considered a typical scene for fan service as _we_ know it. --Niabot (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Why do you think male-aimed fanservice is more common, or more typical, than female-aimed fanservice? --Malkinann (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Just count the anime which are directed at a male audience over the last 10 years (asuming every of this anime has at least one fan service scene involving female characters) and anime in that a male-male kiss actually happend. This might be an unsatisfying result for feminists. But if you insist, i could draw both kind of scenes. I already got a request to draw an picture for Yaoi anyways. --Niabot (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
It would be fairer to count manga, rather than anime - more male-aimed stuff makes the leap from manga to anime. Jason Thompson also makes the point that a male-male kiss occurred in Naruto... --Malkinann (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand we have the scenes of Ero-Sennin, Sexy no Jutsu, as well inside Naruto. The kiss happened once in the earlier episodes, while the others occurred more frequently. --Niabot (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting OI

Since there largely no qualms over at WP:OR about OI to the image itself (although the capiton was specifically excluded) for needing RSes to back up the specific claim that "Wikipetan in a bathing suit is fan service" perhaps we could suggest a rewrite to OI to help clarrify this so future issues don't come like this. It isn't central to Wikipe-tan as I've seen it elsewhere for other drawings/illustrations of characters. The problem seems to stem from the way OU is being read to need RSes specifically mentioning the image or all of the elements in the image, including the character being a representation of X.陣内Jinnai 01:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a matter that should be discussed at WT:OR. However, the real issue wasn't about WP:OI's clarity, but how certain editors were twisting the wording of WP:OI to imply something that was completely different from what WP:OI clearly states in order to remove an image they didn't like. —Farix (t | c) 14:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree it was twusted, but did leave wording that can be twisted (and has in the past and will likely be so in the future if left unchanged on similar grounds). I think this would be a good oppurtunity to clarrify it as one of the next steps and yes, that step would be done at OR.陣内Jinnai 03:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected

Given there are lots of eyes here now, and discussion is proceeding, I've unprotected the page. I understand there is no resolution just yet but think we can remove the clamps. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Academicese help

What's being gotten at here? "Grassmuck and Lamarre both identify the company Gainax as producing texts which specifically address the exterior realm of the otaku. Texts have to burst free from their frames with meta-reference, literally ‘fan-service’, in order to access this realm. Yet what becomes quickly discernable is that violence and hyperphysical activity often result in the same kinds of address as the hypercomplex frames of meta-reference. "

So, Gainax is particuarly good at addressing otaku by adding many "meta-references" (in jokes). Gainax is also good at showing "violence and hyperphysical activity", which hits the same spot for otaku as the in jokes. ? --Malkinann (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I would not narrow it down to a Gainax only phenomenon. Multiple other studios are using such references and that with success. In Seitokai no Ichizon (Studio Deen) we have such references multiple times every minute or so. Even in K-ON! (Kyōto Animation) you will find them dozens of times. It is one of the most successful series so far, going beyond the otaku core.
Using such references and also cameo appearances could be considered as some kind of fan-service. But i guess thats also the reason why it is stated as "literally fan-service".
It would also be nice to know which anime (from which time?) where used as the reference for the assumptions above. In the past Gainax was known to show to introduce some concepts of fan service or to make emphasized use of it. One term that comes to mind is the "Gainax bounce". --Niabot (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't expand it to Studio Deen, as the reference only talks about Gainax and fanservice. According to a footnote in the article, Grassmuck and Lamarre were primarily discussing Otaku no Video. --Malkinann (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Then we should ensure to make this fact prominent in the article. It is an early work from 1991. Saying that this a only Gainax related would also be a wrong conclusion from only one example. --Niabot (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Might be useful as historic in saying that Gainax was (among) the first to do this and finding more recent sources for this that can point to other studios.陣内Jinnai 23:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Play, creativity and digital cultures request

Placed another request here, hoping for the Play, Creativity and Digital Cultures book. --Malkinann (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Fan service in The Comics Journal

Have placed a request here to find out in which issues of The Comics Journal fan service is discussed and defined, as Google books suggests issues 267-269 may have some content. --Malkinann (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi you :)
Nothing really relevant unless i'm mistaken, excerpt 1 is news related to Tenjho Tenge and CMX (comics) probably in issue #268. Excerpt 2 is from the lexicon of issue #269 dedicated to Shojo manga, the one with Moto Hagio interview. Excerpt 3 is from Derk Deppey Love Hina in the same #269 issue. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Excerpt 1 seems the most interesting, as it seems to discuss the nature of fan service, and go into the Tenjho Tenge example more in depth, like in the history section we clarify that Evangelion's juxtaposition of titillation with trauma has removed full nudity from fan service's lexicon. As Tenjho Tenge#Controversy essentially talks about the removal of fan service (the sexual and violent varieties), it can't hurt to ask. Gets more people thinking about sources for the article, at least. --Malkinann (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if you still want excerpt 1, but I have replied to your query over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Fan service in The Comics Journal. Dr pda (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Shrek, poor example

Intertextual references are intended to be seen and understood by the fans, as a way for the creators of the show to acknowledge the fans, and as a way for more knowledgeable fans to impress others. Intertextual fan service is now being inserted into media aimed at younger children as well - this can be seen in Shrek's upside-down kiss scene, which is a reference to an upside-down kiss scene in Spider-Man.[3]

This seems a poor example. Shrek does not seem to be aimed primarily a young children, and this is just an example of a reference to another movie (one of many such in Shrek) rather than fan service.Ordinary Person (talk)

These kinds of shout-outs to other media are a kind of fan service based on recognising the shout-out, and it is discussed as such in the reference. I can provide quotes if you'd like? --Malkinann (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion

The article states that by the 1980s full frontal nudity and shower scenes became standard content for fan service.[8][22] Because of this, Hideaki Anno who had promised Neon Genesis Evangelion would give "every episode...something for the fans to drool over" later began removing the fan service imagery in later episodes; in addition those later episodes that did contain fan service elements juxtaposed them with imagery of the character in some kind of emotional trauma. However, it is not clear (at least to me) why the fact that full frontal nudity and shower scenes became standard by the 1980s implies that Hideaki Anno began removing the fan service imagery in later episodes. Does anybody know what is the relation there? Ricardohz (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Image

For any minutely controversy that arises, this section is to be used for discussion. Tutelary (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I had forgot about that discussion, I saw the image and how it is being used on global wikis. This tells me that the Wikimedia foundation doesn't find issue with it or it would have been axed a long time ago. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I can absolutely say that the Foundation doesn't like that image. But the Foundation doesn't want to violate local wiki autonomy over it. --Jorm (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Worldview

This article appears to have originally been written with anime in mind, which I understand. The term itself originated and is still largely a part of anime fandom, but anime is neither the origin or the scope of the phenomenon. Even the term "fan service" itself has stretched far beyond the borders of anime into other fandoms (e.g. reviews of JJ Abram's Star Trek reboot use the term liberally) so this article should strive to reflect that worldview. As an example of the problem with the current scope, this sentence: "By the 1980s full frontal nudity and shower scenes became standard content for fan service." may certainly be true for anime, but you won't find much full frontal nudity in Western fan service. This would be a confusing revelation for readers who are familiar with fan service, but not anime. I offer for comparison the TV Tropes article on the same subject : http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Fanservice which handles it in a more global perspective, including pre-anime examples of what we would now call fan service and more examples in Western media. I understand that TV Tropes itself is not a reliable source, but like Wikipedia it is crowd-written and serves as a good example of how we can make this article appeal to all uses and examples of the term. The Tropes article still serves to address the very Eastern origin and use of the term well, as I believe this article should as well, but with more balance for non-anime examples. I'll provide some edits as best as I can and look for reliable examples of non-anime use of the term. 2001:57A:400B:101:884D:A1DD:1BBF:A155 (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation with "Easter Egg"?

There is some reference to intertextual fan-service (I think this is the older original definition), but the article seems like it could use more information on how the term came to be a euphemism for a show with lots of nudity or innuendo. Was there a clear time-frame for the switch, or have the two definitions always co-existed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4380:8C10:2C0:CAFF:FE82:D749 (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fan service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fan service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fan_service/Archive_2&oldid=1082340130"