Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wikipe-tan internet series

I think the Wikimedia Foundation should make a weekly animated 30 minute clip, almost like a TV show, and make it avalible for veiwing and downloading from the wikimedia commons. It should feature the Wikipe-tan with the power to master syntax, which she uses against her enemy, the wiki-troll. She would scower the globe for information to put in articles and be given barnstars by administrators for thwarting the efforts of vandals and spammers.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great. Let us know once you've created it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm>

Ha, Ha, Ha, very funny. </sarcasm>

I don't have the time in the day for that.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect most people here don't either. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Easier said than done. Honestly, if you want to see her, I think it would be as a character on an OS-tan series. The OS-tans have been around longer, probably have a bigger fanbase, have more characters, more fan art, and there's already been an animation made of them. There's a personification of antivirus software just like an operating system so I don't see why an encyclopedia couldn't have one. In that case she needs a rival like Encarta-tan or something. All wikis should get -tans and probably all browsers too. Chrome-tan is probably a cyborg. Tyciol (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Needs German article

Despite mentioning a German newspaper using Wikipe-tan, we need a German article about this mascot. I'm sure Germans would like it. Joe9320-1000000 articles more to be edited, One dream. (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There was some discussion about adopting this mascot on the German village pump (back in early 2007, I think), but the community didn't like it at all. --Kam Solusar (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Why?

That makes no sense. "ウィ" is read as "Wi" not "Ui". Moocowsrule (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

It's a common transcription method. For example, the name Watson (from Sherlock Holmes) is also transcribes as "Uatson".~~Nicholas A. Chambers 19:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas.a.chambers (talk • contribs)

Inquiry regarding image inclusion and notability

Perhaps now is the time that there be guidelines regarding what image are to be included in the gallery section of this article citing the rules of Wikipedia regarding the notability and inclusion of content.

My largest source of contention is "by others" and "derivative" galleries and how it seems that anyone’s version Wikipe-tan can upload and display their image. Before more serious editors begin catch on to this article and begin indiscriminately removing some of these images, can we all agree on criteria that make a image worthy of being part of this article?--Kevin586 (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You realize that only applies to the mainspace and not to the projectspace, right? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? Admittedly this is embarrassing but I am still concerned bout the lack of criteria for an image: should editors really allow anyone with a registered account post their adaptation Wikipe-tan in this project page?--Kevin586 (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There have been some images removed, but it's pretty rare unless the image seriously violates some Foundation policies. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Conservape-tan.png was removed from this page, but not from Wikipedia. The only Wikipe-tan drawing I know was completely deleted was LoliWikipetan.jpg, by Jimbo himself. I don't see why anyone would remove a picture from this page, unless it becomes too large. Actually, I can not get enough of her, so don't remove anything ;-) Face 22:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I fixed your link there (it was showing all deletions) to the 2 versions he deleted of the file. I am wondering what these images looked like and if their deletion was justified. Just going by the title 'loli' I don't think 'pedophilic sexualization' is an appropriate label, but he may have based it on something specific in the image. Even so, sexualization (subjective as it is) may be accurate, pedophilic would not be. That is something that people can be, not transformative processes on fictional characters. It begs the question: can the image be non-pedophilicly sexualized? What would that look like? I'm a bit lost, because to me, Wikipe-tan seems like a loli to begin with. Any more loli and she'd be a toddler, so was that the case? Tyciol (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: someone restored Conservape-tan. Cheers, Face 20:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Did someone remove it? I don't see the problem with it. If there are -tan personifications of commons and quote, why not Conservapedia? Is this because it's not affiliated with Wikipedia like the other two? Even so, if they won't host it on Conservapedia, and since Conservapedia is obviously inspired by Wikipedia (read: knockoff) why not show this inspired character? I am strongly wanting to restore this if the deletion was not explained well enough. Tyciol (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who restored the Conservapetan image. Nobody's bothered me about it in three months, but if someone does object then I'll be happy to hear why they don't like it. Personally, I think the main line of objection is not so much that "it's not ours and it's offensive to conservatives so we'd better not use it" but that it just isn't a very good looking image, since whoever made it just turned the mouth upside down and drew some lines. But that's not to belittle the first point; I just don't think conservatives in general are offended enough to raise an objection. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sorry I just noticed it there, I think because I only checked the first gallery. You may want to check here 2nd pic down on the right side, this needs a better caption. Like seriously a 'tree'? That's not even funny! Tyciol (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering all of this, then we probably shouldn't include the image of Uncyclopedia's mirror mascot Uncyclo-tan, eh? BlairXCirucci (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think just link to Uncylopedia's Uncyclo-tan is enough. L-Zwei (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Back of chemise

Can anyone tell me what the back of Wikipe-tans chemise looks like? this would be much appreciated. 12.74.203.43 (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)ElawenYanica12.74.203.43 (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirect deletions

In checking out Wikipe-tan I notice constant attempts over the years to redirect it to this page have been deleted. Why is this? I don't quite understand it. Frequently, pages related to Wikipedia pages will have notes on the top saying "see Wikipedia:x" yet this term, exclusive to Wikipe-tan does not redirect? User:Tyciol 20:44, 14 March 2009

Because Wikipe-tan isn't notable for an article, so it shouldn't have one in article space. The search engine will catch anyone trying to find this page easily enough. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Your first point in correct, but typing Wikipe-tan into the main search box is pretty useless. Dragons flight (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As I'm sure you noticed, the page has been salted, so you can't restore the redirect. There's a general consensus that cross-namespace redirects are to be avoided, which I don't agree with myself, but it's not a terrible harm as far as I can see, since even if someone tries to view Wikipe-tan it's unlikely they will give up and assume no such page exists. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I didn't notice until you mentioned it but yeah, there's no creation button... so much for my brash plans to recreate it, lol. I notice Wikipetan is similarly salted although I don't see any deletion logs there... the explanation given links to Wikipedia:Protected titles/Wikipedia-related which gives absolutely no explanation at all specific to the article, or even to redirect creations. Tyciol (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Typying Wikipe-tan in the box will bring up Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan as the first result. That's what I meant. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. You may have changed it in your preferences, but by default the main search box only returns articles. That result won't be listed unless take the further step of explicitly telling it to search Wikipedia space. Dragons flight (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Tracing the deletion history here... (I have replaced {{}} with <<>> to avoid the templates appearing here, and removed an exclamation mark to avoid having it wiped out)

• 16:23, 8 February 2007 JzG (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipe-tan" ‎ (WP:PT)
• 05:46, 4 October 2006 Centrx (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipe-tan" ‎ (content was: '#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan' (and the only contributor was 'Erisie'))
• 22:32, 1 October 2006 Thatcher (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipe-tan" ‎ (content was: '<<db|mainspace pollution, many times deleted>><<softredirect|Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan>>')
• 11:02, 12 September 2006 Kusma (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipe-tan" ‎ (WP:ASR, should be useful or a redlink, content was: '<<deletedpage>><-- Placing comments to avoid listing on shortpages. Placing comment to avoid listing on shortpages. Placing comment to avoid listing ...')
• 22:32, 5 August 2006 WAvegetarian (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipe-tan" ‎ (crossnamespace redirect, again)
• 08:06, 5 August 2006 Delirium (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipe-tan" ‎ (content was: '<<db|Cross-namespace redirect AGAIN. Delete per RfD. It has been created four times.>>#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan')
• 21:37, 3 August 2006 Wwwwolf (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipe-tan" ‎ (Crossnamespace redirect that appears to be unwanted)
• 21:02, 20 July 2006 (aeropagitica) (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipe-tan" ‎ (content was: '<<db|recreation of cross-namespace redirect, deleted per [[Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Redirect Archives/July 2006#Wikipe-tan → Wikipedia:Wikip...')
• 18:15, 5 July 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipe-tan" ‎ (content was: '<<rfd>>#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan' (and the only contributor was 'Grm wnr'))

The first delete was acceptable, because the creator requested his redirect be deleted. That is fine, but not a reason to prevent recreation of the redirect if someone else other than Grm wants it to exist. The July 20 redirection's link is cut off for being too short, but I managed to find it here. This only explained the reason for the first deletion. It does not explain why 'recreation of a cross-namespace redirect' which was previously deleted is an unacceptable thing. For example check out this where User:Fastfission gives an explanation on the value of not merely deleting redirects. I posit that all redirects have historical value, and that every time this redirect is deleted, potential historical value is being removed. So I don't think there was a valid reason for aeropagitica to do this.

Aero, along with followup deletions by Delirium and thatcher, had the page tagged with Template:Db with merely "cross-namespace redirect" repeatedly cited as a reason, yet where is this explanation on Wikipedia? Ironically enough, there's no way to find out what that is besides assuming there was already a Wikipedia article on it. I was right" Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. I created a new cross-namespace redirect to that, which is why the previous quoted phrase is blue now and not red. I figure this is less controversial and better explains my point in protest rather than recreating Wikipe-tan again (after all, it has a rich deletion history which I would like others to review before this is decided by consensus). The other editors wolf, vegetarian, centrex follow this lead even when the article is not tagged Db. Kusma uniquely referened Wikipedia:SRA which is not applicable at all here because a redirect is not an article, only articles can self-reference.

The problem is that 'Db' is a template explaining criteria for speedy deletion. If we look at the redirect section of the appropriate page, #2 references this stating "Redirects from the article namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. If the redirect was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect." The problem is that this does not explain why though, why this is a rule. This is dependant upon the previously mentioned Wikipedia:CNR issue so I added a 'See also' to this rule to help readers understand this.

The problem here is that if a redirect violates self-reference then disambiguations would also do that. A big problem with this is that we want users to become familiar with wikipedia policies, and deleting these redirects directly interferes with this. A multitude of redirects of various forms of reference to a policy helps people to find it. Otherwise they have the same difficulty I would, in having to figure out to type Wikipedia: beforehand and experimenting with that.

Currently Wikipe-tan does not have her own article on the main encyclopedia. The thing is, Wikipedia is an article. Why isn't it Wikipedia:Wikipedia (for some reason that redirects to the 'About') leaving it a redspace? Clearly, Wikipedia is encyclopedic, it is not a 'crack in the floor' nor is Wikipe-tan because she is notable in her own right. A 'meme' so to speak. I mean just look, she's the first thing you see on Moe anthropomorphism and she has appeared in news articles published about Wikipedia! Not to mention someone made this which nobody seems to care about it being deleted despite it also being cross-namespace (do Japanese symbols not count?)

Cross-namespace redirects are only something we should avoid if it is something that could be an article about a topic not related to Wikipedia. Adopt-a-User for example, could be a term adopted by something other than Wikipedia, anything that has users. Why is that redirect allowed, but Wikipe-tan, something PURELY Wikipedian (and thus not confusable with anything, Wikipe is IN THE NAME) not allowed?

I want to restore this redirect. I will do so if I visit here some time later and there are no valid objections to doing so. If someone knows which (or all) of these deleting editors are still active, I would value their input on this as they are likely more familiar with the policies behind it and could explain this to me better. Actually, I'm going to go against what I said before, I'm just recreating it. I'll link to here in my recreation statement, and it can be properly talked about then. If it ends up getting deleted again then the deletion log will show the stuff I just quoted again anyway, along with new material to discuss.

What I am going to ask: if someone deletes this again, hopefully you read this first. Please explain INDEPTHLY why you are doing, preferably with a link to a more detailed explanation about it in reply here, due to the limitations on space in the deletion logs. Tyciol (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an article, because it's notable. If you read the article, you'll notice it's a standard article, not any sort of about or help page. As for the rest of that, well, I'm sure others could say stuff better than me. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be implying Wikipe-tan is not notable. If she is not notable, you may want to begin a crusade to have her removed from moe anthropomorphism since she's the star feature there. Why feature something not notable? If Wikipedia is notable, she is by extension of being one of the most wellknown mascots of Wikipedia. Besides I'm not even arguing to give her a mainspace article, just a redirect, or even a stub with a disambiguation explaining that it is linking to a Wikipedia subarticle and not an encylopedic article. Tyciol (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. She's used as a picture example. Since it's a free pic, it's perfectly fine to use it. There's a line mentioning her as an example, but that should probably be changed. Hardly any sort of 'star feature', and it has nothing to do with her being notable as a stand alone article or not. The main point here, though, is that a redirect from article space to other space is considered verboten. There's no article at Community portal either, for example. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't fully understand the article if you think she is merely a picture example. The topic of that article is personifications which are 'moe' of non-personal entities. A picture of a random moe anime girl would NOT qualify. Wikipe-tan is the prime example, along with the OS-tans (who probably preceded her). I personally think they're at equal notibility at this point. If you removed the line mentioning her then you would need to remove her picture too, so go and do that and see how it goes over with the people who monitor that article. Community portal? That is not an appropriate comparison: that is a description. Easily figured out by community and portal. It is not a NAME like Wikipedia or Wikipe-tan which refer to specific entities, not something which is very interchangable, so please try again. Tyciol (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand the article just fine. Wikipe-tan is an example of moe anthropomorphism, she's completely free, so it's used. The fact that she's a personification of Wikipedia itself may very well help the reason to use her, but it doesn't make her notable in and of herself. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but given the deletion history, I would say that the proper path forward, if forward is the desired direction, would be WP:DRV. The number of different admins involved makes it difficult to just say that it is needed for one to reverse him/her-self. So I would think that a full DRV would be the proper way to officially undo the salting. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan request

Where can I go to request a creation of a certain picture of Wikipe-tan? Secret Saturdays (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You could try posting a request at User talk:Kasuga; he occasionally creates new images of Wikipe-tan on request. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why???!!

Dear Wikipedia, do you hate kawaii esthetics so you choosed ugly green worm instead of Wikipe-tan as mascot of Wikipedia i just don't understand! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.24.208.18 (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Some people just don't like anime/manga/visual novel-styled characters - you should see some of the comments in the Featured Image-related discussions for one of the Wikipe-tan images. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh, Wikipe-tan is de facto mascot anyway. No one really uses Wikipede. bibliomaniac15 05:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Wikipede isn't mascot. He got most vote, but it's still less than "no mascot" vote. Wikipe-tan, on other hand, is the poster girl has various design/costume to demonstrate various topics. So despite has some hatedom, she's one of the most useful character here. L-Zwei (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Vote or no vote, Wikipe-tan is, by now, our de facto mascot. Wikipede can stuff it (pardon my French), even if he didn't actually garner enough votes to become the mascot. =D 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, only a few handful of users know who Wikipede is while almost every user knows who Wikipe-tan is, and in my book, the one that is more noticable or well-known automatically gets them the title of mascot. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 00:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipe-kun

There should be a male version of this... --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 19:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Kasuga's talk page is thataway; I'd actually be pretty interested in seeing a male version of Wikipe-tan. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Uhh... I have no idea of boy's costume that can make a pair with the girl's housemaid costume. (For example, a young boy steward?) --Kasuga (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

*shrugs* Maybe just make a sample image with several possible outfits and ask what people like the best? Other than that, steward outfit does sound good, now that you mention it. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A bishonen Wikipe-kun ?!! --KrebMarkt 18:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Aren't they around 15? That's a bit too old for a potential WP-kun in my opinion. --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 16:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a butler or something would work as well as complement the maid outfit on Wikipe-tan. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hentai Wikipe-tan...

Whoa hold it there...Really? does it exists? Not that i care...--Frank Fontaine (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe at one time there was a Wikipe-tan for the lolicon article, but the image was removed. Beyond that, the "adult Wikipe-tan in a bikini" is the raciest image of her that's actually in her article. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 01:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Rule 34 applies here... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It exists. Let's leave it at that. _dk (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well she’s not as nice as Orihime from Bleach anyway…--Frank Fontaine (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia dramatica has Hentai pics of her and also claim Jimbo is her older lover…They hate her too ): --Frank Fontaine (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Dramatica hate EVERYTHING. Geez, those hentai including guro one, the thumbnail appear in Google search is more than enough to make me feel sick. L-Zwei (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Found yet another good fan art.

Here. L-Zwei (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's got a Creative Commons license; has anyone uploaded it to Commons yet? (and yeah, that's a good one =) ) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You can almost see up her skirt...--Frank Fontaine (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

NC license so not free enough for wikipedia.©Geni 19:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Fuck Respect copyright.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, does CC allow relicensing between its various flavors? If so, someone could try to get ahold of the artist... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The artist can release it under other CC licenses (and there is a legal argument that they should but it's widely ignored) but unless you get their agreement you are stuck with the current license.©Geni 20:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get in touch with them at some point, then. Which license should I recommend? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 16:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like Nihonjoe beat you to it:) G.A.S^talk 20:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded it.©Geni 23:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I'm speedy that way. I'm also on dA. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yaaaaaa this articles Kawaii just went up by 5000000 Percent! Good job.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, would Kasuga want to see it? But I don’t think he/she’s around at the moment. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he keeps an eye on this page for new stuff. ;) Also, thanks to you, Joe (for getting ahold of the artist) and Geni (for uploading the pic)! 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 15:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I am a big fan of that Deviant. The person must be awarded for their service IMO. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 00:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I love the new pic!!! I was thinking of getting in touch w/ the artist but looks like someone beast me to it!!! But thanks anyways!!! Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 16:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

He? Not so sure...[1] says it's a girls name (= --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Kasuga is a family name as well, and not a terribly uncommon one. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

He/She then. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

He per his dA page. G.A.S^talk 20:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok ok! I just found it hard to assume something so Kawaii could be created by a guy…)= --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I was also quite surprised. But at the end of the day it is the artwork that matters. ^_^ G.A.S^talk 21:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The only Manga/Anime i know of that has been created by a woman is Full Metal Alchemist...--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Created by women: Sailor Moon, Red River, Saint Tail, Kodomo no Omocha, Inu Yasha, Maison Ikkoku, and a huge pile of others.

Created by men: Living Game, Kimagure Orange Road, Kiteretsu Daihyakka, Tsukuyomi: Moon Phase, High School! Kimengumi, and a huge pile of others. I could make a bigger list... ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

*imagines the CFD discussion for Category:Manga authored by men and Category:Manga authored by women* I AM JUST KIDDING; DON'T CREATE THESE CATEGORIES! =) As to Kasuga's gender, I don't know why, but I think I always imagined him as a guy, and I've known for a while that he actually is male. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

NooooOOoOooOOoo!!!!

Encyclopedia Dramatica have made their own twisted version of our dear Wikipe-tan. Grab your torches and pitchforks! Round up the mob! Curse them! --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

lol. Satire. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeez!

Wikipe-tan is an example of Moe anamorphic and is Wikipedia’s mascot. Also, before any of you say “OMG Weeaboo shit” this image was made by someone who is in fact 100% Japanese, Lives in Japan and is an admin of the Japanese Wikipedia. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, why can't it go there then? Or, even better, on his personal website. This page has absolutely no place on wikipedia, let alone in the wikipedia namespace. --Jonnty (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It is there and also all language on left side. Why she's here? Simple, her images are use to demonstrate various topics like national costume and events. As well as being mascot on few Wikpedia projects. So she become part of Wikipedia culture. That's why she's in Wikipedia namespace and not main namespace. L-Zwei (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Who cares about this mascot other than you guys? How is it notable at all to the majority of users (i.e. normal people who aren't a member of your spec community)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.235.145 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability only applies to the mainspace, not to project space. However, even in mainspace, there have been enough articles about Wikipe-tan (and uses of her image in various publications, as well) to show notability. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Being in WP namespace, this project won't show up in search or random article. So it won't bother whoever researching other topic. Really, only those who is either interesting in this character or already know her will come to this page. L-Zwei (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

my points keep getting deleted so whats the use —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.10.97 (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Because you're rude. L-Zwei (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does this exist?

This whole section and the mascot itself only reinforces the stereotypes about Wikipedia's contributors/editors (i.e. obsessive japanophiles). Not to mention that the sheer amount of images and their style seems as if this page was a misplaced DeviantArt profile of a horrible basement dweller.

Is there any reason why is "Wikipe-tan"(why should we even use japanese honorifics? They hold no meaning in the english language and I haven't seen honorifics of any other language used anywhere) should be present at all,much less drawn in the frankly horrible "moe" style,or even worse,in sexually suggestive poses/clothing?

Probably got bot-deleted,reposting. I'm genuinely curious why have you picked "moe" to be the style of the mascot instead of any other. Was there a vote? Have you considered more classical/western styles? I just believe there are better ways to summarize the effort for making a free for all database of all knowledge than some overly cute girl lacking any real human proportions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.8.80 (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan is an unofficial mascot created by a Wikipedia fan. Yes, there was a vote (I forgot where), and Wikipe-tan lost. This is a fan project, not an official Wikipedia project. Wikipedia has plenty of fan projects that use the Project namespace, so I'm not sure why you're so upset by this. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Click here for an archive of the mascot vote. Wikipede is Wikipedia's official mascot, but Wikipe-tan is far more popular. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I wont delete your comment again, but most of what you have said is rather hostile and also badly judged.--Le Cleaner (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies then, I wasn't aware of it's unofficial status and I was somewhat influenced by the recent "In anime" debate and my growing dislike of the amount of manga-related articles in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.8.80 (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I work on other wikis, and I dislike it when one of the projects goes off in a direction I rather not have it go in. Of course, I'm a weeaboo and love manga, but I still can relate. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

On the bright side, this discussions has results in some positive changes. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're REALLY honestly curious about the -tan thing, check moe anthropomorphism. It's not really an honorific. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but it is an honorific, albeit a cutesy-ified one. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Kawaii!

So cute. I love it.^_^. Reading the warning at the top makes me think some people hate this stuff, oh-well.--Yuka Chan (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't it be ヰキペータン？(Wikipe-tan)日向テマリ

That sound isn't in use in modern Japanese. ウィ (Ui) represents the closest sound in the language. --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 02:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

lol

This looks like the kind of articles found on Encyclopedia Dramatica, maybe Encyclopedia Dramatica copied the format for its articles from this one? xD--Fernirm (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It still looks like a far less interesting Encyclopedia Dramatica page. 81.97.40.143 (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh...

Is this a legitimate article? If so this thing seriously needs to be overhauled. Like...REALLY badly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.91.207 (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please direct your eyes to the section above this one. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly the number of links from mainspace needs to be trimmed. They should definitely all be enclosed in a {{selfref}}, if they're not already. Just a thought :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I did all the ones I thought should use that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

website error

the cosplay page at the bottom has html errors — Preceding unsigned comment added by WCLL HK (talk • contribs) 02:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It works fine for me and im running IE 8. Maybe it is your web browser. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Images from Think of Wikipe-tan

None of these images are orginal and have all been cropped or altered one may be POV, I will leave it up to other editors if these images shoul be included here or not - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an article. It doesn't really matter if it's "POV". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I added two of the three images but held back on the Conservape-tan version as there has been dispute about the images, no need to add fuel to the fire ongoing right now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not a fan

I think this article was misleading in saying that I "recognized" Wikipe-tan. My removal of the sexualized version from commons was in no way an endorsement of the standard versions. I don't like Wikipe-tan and never have. I recognize that some people do, and I'm not particularly agitated about it, but my name should not be invoked in a way that might lead some to believe that I approve. Thanks!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Our new goal is to draw an anime Jimbo Wales and add it to his userpage. Shii (tock) 12:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

So... why not become a fan? --Sigmundur (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"Our new goal is to draw an anime Jimbo Wales and add it to his userpage. Shii (tock) 12:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)" Fascinating! Pandelver (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Why Ever Delete Pages Like This, Despite Individual Objections and Plaudits

since it is not only the anime character, including by extension any versions in past or future which are not currently attached, but the nature now, BECAUSE of all the discussion, of the character's role in the EDITING life of Wikipedia which has by now made Wikipe-tan honestly iconic, an unquestionably acute demonstrar and crystallization of what is much of Wikipedia's actual activity as an organization? Especially the international agglomeration which has created her/us.

Openness in revealing our collective process to users, visitors, perusers and those aware of Wikipedia who do not frequent our pages, is part of Wikipedia's mission to enroll all those online in the creation of a global, open encyclopedia, and the sharing and imparting to them of standards, paradigms for cooperation and revision and linkage, and the acknowledgment, even championing of notability, including within entertainment, humor, cultural concerns, linguistic idioms, literary genres. We are one of the most proven repositories of notability even in what some here are verbally charging to be silliness (as a valuation of Wikipe-tan), we only omit un-noteworthy silliness. We hope not to miss inclusion of important silliness, notable and fervid athropological diversity of taste, nor what is already and promises to remain historically important elements of public taste.

I'm not particularly an artistic fan of Wikipe-tan. I recognize her significance, all the more because of the way fellow editors have strong content opinions regarding her and her associates, creators, fans, interpreters, and analysts, and because the sustained debate about her, chronicled here for many years and still a live issue, make the Wikipedia editors' many relations to her and to each other through her a notable phenomenon of internet scope. Perhaps one of you, colleagues, must start a page on the social impact, Wikipedia communal, process, and methodological significance, and past and evolving aesthetics, historiography, and mythography of Wikipe-tan? Please inform me when you do, I shall be one of the many observers around the world interested in something as telling as the immediate second thoughts among the voting populace of Russia which is currently of note regarding the designs, symbolism, qualities and significance of the next Olympic mascots, just unveiled.

Pandelver (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

Do we really need to put that she is a mascot (regardless of controversial or unofficial)? Since that part cause so much trouble and, IMO, is what make good editors upset about her. I'm fine with just descript her as moe anthropomorphism of Wikipedia who has many usage in various WikiProjects since that is fact, not subjective status. L-Zwei (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

She has been used as a mascot of sorts by the press. No matter how much she may be disliked by however many people here, that fact still stands. I'd prefer to keep the mention in the lead, but don't think I'd be terribly bothered if that was removed. The mention of it lower down is explicitly supported by a reference, though, so shouldn't be removed (unless Jimbo raises another guff, maybe). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 04:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

She is controversial as a mascot. I don't understand why that was removed (particularly with the cmt to see the talk page, which has not up to now been discussing that particular part of the disagreement). LadyofShalott 01:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether she is controversial is irrelevant. While not an official mascot, she is definitely an unofficial mascot (one which seems to be far more widely used that the official mascot, Wikipede). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we just leave out her being a unofficial mascot so we don't generate so much controversy? This isn't article space where we're obliged to be clear about everything. (Wikipede won the mascot vote, but there wasn't any effort to make it or any candidate to be an official mascot anyways.) _dk (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The lead tells the article as a whole right, if that is the case then there is no real section in the article that goes into this controversy or explains by who. The facts are that wikipe-tan is a mascot used by one or more wikiprojects, and is seen as a mascot by the media so putting her as a mascot in the lead is right in my opinion. I feel that the part that should be excluded is the "of wikipedia" bit, doing that leaves her status as a mascot open to ones opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Rationale?

What rationale is applied to determine which images are included in the galleries on this page? I am particularly concerned with the inclusion of File:Wikipe_tan_wearing_a_bikini_by_Kasuga39.png - several editors have expressed the opinion that this image is offensive and inappropriate. I attempted to remove it from this page, and was reverted because it's used in the Fan service article, which to me does not seem like a valid reason to include it on this page. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Its already being discussed at Talk:Fan service, I would prefer File:Kogaru1.jpg (Up for deletion for an unrelated reason) for the article as it is not wikipe-tan and is also a free use image. I do noyt see how it would be fine to include it on one page but not another page as this page is about wikipe-tan and thus in the scope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Images that are nonfree should be removed- it'd be a tough argument to make a FUR apply here. Removing images in terms of taste is much more difficult and should be left to the community, perhaps using the XfD process on the image, bearing in mind Wikipedia is not censored. tedder (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been a whole arguement about images involving wikipe-tan recentlly over at the anime/manga talk page, removing images just because you do not like them is not a valid reason, and I do not see how removing them from this page but allowing them on other pages would solve anything, just my thoughts on this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

XfD does not apply to this image because it is hosted on Commons, not locally, and NOTCENSORED applies only to articles, which this page is not. Your comment about scope does not answer mine about rationale - could someone please answer that directly? You cannot argue that all images of Wikipe-tan are on this page, because they're not, and you'd end up with a huge gallery if you tried (maybe someone should create a category instead?). My argument is not that I don't like the image (in fact, I have not expressed my personal opinion on it at all), but that several other editors feel it is inappropriate and offensive. As for fan service, it's more acceptable on that page because the article is about the inclusion of racy/sexual imagery, while this page is about what some have dubbed "the cute little anime mascot of Wikipedia" - do you really believe those two are one and the same? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED does not apply to wikipedia as a whole then so where does it state that this only applies to the articles? Anyways even if the image is excluded from the article the file name still stands and is still a target for those who disagree as is with anything else on wikipedia. The two things I can see keeping the bathing suit image here is it is wikipe-tan and is used in the anime/manga project for an article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Both NOTCENSORED and the related content disclaimer refer to articles, and it's generally accepted that NOTCENSORED does not apply outside of article space. As to the rest of your comment, could you please express yourself more clearly? I don't follow what you're trying to say. And could someone please answer my question about rationale for an image (in general, not this specific one) to be included on this page? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the restrictions for non-article space are looser, except for FUR. tedder (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Right now the rationale seems to be:

• Images here used by the anime/manga project or other projects/areas on wikipedia.
• Images here related to wikipe-tan as that is what the name of the article is and about.

This is what I see, I do not know where the limits lies, you will need other editor's input on that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Images related to wikipe-tan" cannot be the correct rationale, because a) there are dozens of images of Wikipe-tan not on this page, and b) some images on this page are not of Wikipe-tan. "Images used by the anime/manga project or other projects/areas on wikipedia" is even broader, and several of the images on this page appear only on this page. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Several editors think the image is offensive" isn't valid reason to remove it, however. Seriously, "several editors" just hate Wikipe-tan simply because she's moe anthropomorphism of wikipedia. And I say you must hate anime in general to think that File:Wikipe_tan_wearing_a_bikini_by_Kasuga39.png is offensive. Geez, this image use adult version of Wikipe-tan, not her usual child version. Her bikini is casual ones and she doesn't make suggestive pose either. So I don't see any solid reason why you think this is offensive. L-Zwei (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal commentary, especially related to a person's values and beliefs (of which you have no knowledge, I might add) are generally unhelpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh, focus on my comment and ignore fact why the image isn't offensive? That's fine. Just want to point out that while you may insist that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is valid here, it will mean that WP:ILIKEIT is valid here too (both essay are opposition, buth they are same at core - you want to remove/keep thing because of your personal values and beliefs). L-Zwei (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand some other editor's anger here, supporters of wikipe-tan have been attacked in the last month or so going so far as to being called "undersexed basement dwellers" assuming good faith though I do not think Nikkimaria is meaning any harm here and just wants to know what the reason is on why some images are needed/kept here if they are already included elsewhere. I think a rationale should be put in place here as yes not every picture of wikipe-tan is here, some of the ones just included here and on talk page can just be confined to talk pages to avoid future problems or put into a category (Hey just because they are not on this article does not mean you still can not find them and place them on wikipedia in good spots), while others that are used by projects and on articles should be kept here maybe? Rather then images removed I think seeing it looks like no rationale is put into place, make one here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else have anything to add to this discussion? It's still not clear (to me at least) what the rationale is. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think what needs to be discussed is whether your rationale for unilaterally removing half the images is acceptable. This isn't a regular article, so many of the policies which apply to mainspace content do not apply here as far as inclusion of items and such. File:Wikipe_tan_wearing_a_bikini_by_Kasuga39.png is hardly an offensive image of Wikipe-tan, despite what you keep repeating here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove that image in my most recent edit. Knowledgekid87 suggested above that the rationale for inclusion of images on this page should be that they are used by projects and articles. Despite my request for further input, nobody made any further suggestions, so I assumed that his idea was accepted. Therefore, I removed a number of images not used in projects or articles...and was unilaterally reverted. Now, if the rationale suggested by Knowledgekid87 is in fact not accepted, then by all means develop one that is. If it is accepted, then kindly stop reverting me. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to remove any image just because it's unused elsewhere in WP. Why would you think you'd need to? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I was going by Knowledgekid87's proposed rationale, which you can see above - "some of the ones just included here and on talk pages can just be confined to talk pages...while others that are used by projects and on articles should be kept here". Obviously this page can't include every image of Wikipe-tan, because that would make it so long as to be impossible to load - there are literally at least a hundred of them not included here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I assumed the page was an art gallery, meant to host all Wikipetan artwork except those agreed by consensus to be of poor quality (e.g. if I scribbled a picture in crayon with all the lines messed up I wouldnt expect it to be hosted). There is a gallery on Commons, but it would be strange to put pictures there that are not used outside of enwiki (e.g. the ones that have text). I didnt know there were a large number of images not included here. Is there an easy way to view them? —Soap— 13:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Category:Wikipe-tan includes a lot of them. Category:Wikipe-tan includes a few that are only hosted locally, most of which are not included on this page. There are also a few either not categorized or mis-categorized - searching locally for "wikipe-tan" in File finds 300+ results, and this page includes well under 200 images. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggested that a rationale be made here and still do not know as well what or if this page has one and was just throwing around ideas. Seeing though that there was indeed no response I figured to just let the matter drop. -Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

sorry for butting in. is this edit war? 1st 2nd and 3rd Ald™ ▀Ous™ 02:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No to be an edit war it would have to be 3 reverts in less than 24 hours time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

ahh sorry... but please... this page been edited with unneeded edit. like "removal of content". just make a consensus and see who support and oppose. Ald™ ▀Ous™ 02:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(e/c, reply to Knowledgekid88 above) I'd rather move forward, if possible. Would anyone else like to propose a rationale for inclusion of images on this page? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and posted a new section in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga, I would like and hope this does not go into a another long drawn out battle here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the burqa image could be removed, as it is not of good quality. --Malkinann (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Note edit warring takes many forms, one of which is 3RR ("3 in 24 hours"). Nikkimaria, you said "rationale for inclusion", but.. we were talking about a rationale for exclusion previously. Why has that changed? Given this isn't an article, there's no need for it to not be a gallery, to meet certain standards, or to only use images that aren't used elsewhere. I'm having trouble understanding the rationale aside from a personal point of view. tedder (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Seemingly low-quality ones

File:Manga icon 2.png - Can be replaced with a higher res version and the links can shrink it to 50x50.

File:Wikipe-tan goth wallpaper 2.jpg - image appears to be too dark. Also has the problems that the other wallpaper ones have (see below).

File:Wikipe-tan (burqa).png - image is very poorly drawn.

Questionable low-quality

File:Wikipe-tan avatar.png - could be that it is to mimic the oldschool pixel avatar art. Would have to assess that on a case-by-case basis.

File:Wikipe-tan.PNG - appears to be a low-quality image of a handdrawn image.

Other

File:Wikipe-tan sorceress.png - non-colorized version of another colorized image.

File:Wikipe-tan goth wallpaper 1.jpg and File:Wikipe-tan goth wallpaper 3.jpg - wallpapers that just paste File:Wikipe-tan GothLoli.png over a flat black image.

File:Wikipe-tan don't abbreviate wikipedia russian.PNG - I don't think we need the Russian version here.陣内_Jinnai 04:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Tedder: a rationale for inclusion is, in general terms, also a rationale for exclusion - if certain images are included, others are excluded, and both of these are determined by the same rationale (theoretically, at least). I'm aware that this isn't an article, but I also see no reason for it to be an image gallery - that's what Commons is for. The proposed rationale was not mine, but Knowledgekid88's, although I think it's a decent one. The entire reason I feel there should be a rationale is to moderate the WP:IDONTLIKEIT vs WP:ILIKEIT - there will likely still be some of that, but having a defined rationale eliminates the need to discuss every image on the page and every one that might be added in future. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

i agree for File:Wikipe-tan.PNG and File:Wikipe-tan (burqa).png to be removed. as for the rest i don't see any problem(s). --Ald™ ¬_¬™ 13:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of images

There appears to be a small war going on about the images here, the only consensus I can see above was by two editors in agreement to remove the following:

File:Wikipe-tan.PNG
File:Wikipe-tan (burqa).png

Any other images should have a consensus as there is clearly a divide. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't understand why these are being removed, especially with an edit summary of "per talk, change caption". There's a discussion right above this section about the images, but the discussion doesn't result in a consensus- and clearly there isn't a consensus for removal or there wouldn't be complaints/reverts of the removal. tedder (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Actully Tedder those two images were the right ones removed as discussed above due to low quality image issues I guess, as for the caption though I think that can be considered a bit over the top. Any other image (other than those two) that is to be removed though should require consensus given the history. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I'll respect the consensus, then. It just smells fishy when it's done with an edit summary that doesn't match, and it has happened several times before. tedder (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary used did match - I removed those two images per talk and change a caption. I'm not sure what your point is in citing different instances of changes to images, given the different situation - this edit, for example, removed a second occurrence of an image that already appeared higher up on the page. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a different version

As no offense to Mr.Kasuga, maybe we could make her a bit more, I guess a word could be educated. The main purpose of a moe anthropomorphism is to exemplify the person as a reflection of the object's presumed personality. From these images, we get the idea wikipedia is a bit childish and happy-go-lucky. Wikipedia is actually a serious and informative encyclopedia site. Maybe some glasses and a smile while she reads a book would suffice but I'd personally like to see something that effectively shows what the "tone" of wikipedia is in moe form. 24.19.227.186 (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe two of them, engaged in a catfight over whether to spell it "civilization" or "civilisation". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If we were to accurately reflect the "tone" of Wikipedia in moe anthropomorphism , it'd be two Wikipe-tans mud-wrestling naked (each with a label of the sides of any Wiki-battleground..."'Israel' vs. 'Palestine'", "'Obama' vs. 'birthers'", "'Amanda Knox is guilty' vs. 'was framed'"...while shadowed figures in the background tsk-tsk with one finger and shake hands of one side or the other with the other. Tarc (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Each with a flower in her hair, one tagged Edelweiss, the other tagged Leontopodium alpinum. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan does have diffrent versions about several or so (Idenity crisis?), take your pick, anyways this is turning into more of a forum discussion more than anything else it really depends on what article wikipe-tan is used in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Making this cartoon character more bookish or "nerdy" might be a good counterpoint to the claim that her mere presence is at least sexist and at worst somehow endorses child molesting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If someone wants to make a version of wikipe-tan that looks more bookish or "nerdy" fine, upload it and throw it into the gallery. Wikipe-tan is not used mainstream on wikipedia though, and where it is used that should be based on seperate discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that it won't work. People like Tarc will still label it as sexist even if Wikipe-tan appear as old hag (at worst, somehow endorses old timer-phile), as long as she clearly has gender. Heck, what if we have Wikipe-kun instead? Now we're at least gay sexist and at worst somehow endorses child gay molesting. What if it's muscular Wikipe-man? Now we're at least sexist and at worst somehow endorses Bara. L-Zwei (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Your tears sustain me. All I want to see is less of the wiki-loli, anything that moves in that direction is a good thing. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing that connects wikipe-tan to loli the way it is now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

read this first, before commenting. Moe (slang), Tv tropes Moe and Tv Tropes Moe Anthropomorphism. Ald™ ¬_¬™

Nikkimaria and WP:OWN

I've observed that User:Nikkimaria has been making changed to WP:Wikipe-tan without starting any sort of discussion. Now we've reached the point where Nikkimaria unilateral moved "WP:Wikipe-tan" to "WP:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Wikipe-tan". Nikkimaria has been active on Wikipedia since 2006, so we can't treat this as a case of a new user not being aware of a policy or guideline. Nikkimaria has been asked to participate in talk page discussion in the edit summaries of those who reverted her or him. Since Nikkimaria made this comment, it's reasonable to assume that Nikkimaria knows that she or he was engaging in edit warring or had seen the edit summary messages.

I'm going to leave her or him a message and ask her or him to discuss her or his proposed chances here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of making further changes to the page so long as it remains at the current title. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It would've been preferable to have started a discussion before making such a drastic change to the project page's title. Can you please explain why the current title is more appropriate than the older one? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Because the page is more suitable as a subpage of the A&M WikiProject. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that it would be more suitable. Wikipe-tan isn't a creation of that WikiProject. Kasuga39 created Wikipe-tan and publicized it on 2chan. Wikipe-tan's first Wikimedia appearances on were on Commons and Meta. Wikipe-tan was adopted by multiple WikiProjects. Wikipe-tan's popularity and usage extends beyond WikiProject Anime and manga. Wikipe-tan is a sort of Wikipedia cultural icon. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree, but in any case, Wikipe-tan can be used beyond this WikiProject no matter where this page is placed. This page is more suitable as a subpage of the WikiProject. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is it more suitable? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because the general Wikipedia population shouldn't be subject to this wiki-loli junk. If the anime club wants it, let them keep it. Tarc (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria didn't allow the WikiProject to have a say in this; she or he dumped it on their laps without any warning. I'll leave them a message, so they can have a say in which project pages should become subpages of their WikiProject. If they want it as a subpage, they can keep it as a subpage, but Nikkimaria shouldn't make that decision for them. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

May Nikkimaria please answer my "Why is it more suitable?" question? She or he says "It's more suitable" as if it were a fact. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it's one more case of editwarring, followed by the statement "I won't edit war if my version sticks". tedder (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether you agree with the page move or not, it's certainly not edit-warring. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved it back, because a page move of this nature without discussion is clearly trolling. The only thing that's changed since Nikkimaria started is some missing ELs which could go either way so I won't change those back at the moment. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No it is not, and I strongly object to your characterization of my actions as trolling. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Second. Nikkimaria shouldn't be mischaracterized as a troll. Nikkimaria is a long-term editor who became a sysop without much opposition. The lack of opposition tells me that community has a lot of faith in Nikkimaria's abilities. I just wish Nikkimaria didn't treat this subject as something unworthy of having reasonable discussions about. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, it's clear that Nikkimaria has been editwarring with MULTIPLE editors over the inclusion of certain few images. If Nikkimaria wants certain images removed, s/he should present their arguments as to why those images violate policies and guidelines or why those images are inappropriate for inclusion. I also find it disturbing that Nikkimaria is single handily forcing WikiProject Anime and manga to "adopt" the page without consulting the Wikiproject first. Pages should not be forced upon a Wikiproject without prior consultation. As for the move, I simply don't agree with it. The character has been adopted by other WikiProjects and the community at large, so making it a subpage of WikiProject Anime and manga would not be completely appropriate. Making it a subpage of WikiProject Anime and manga presents the character as wholly the "property" of WikiProject Anime and manga, something that will not sit well with WikiProject Anime and manga or the other Wikiprojects that have adopted Wikipe-tan. —Farix (t | c) 17:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Move Totally unilateral move. Where is the consensus to do this? Is Nikkimaria declaring war to the editors who opposed such move in previous discussions ? --KrebMarkt (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Also oppose move. There are similar pages in 26 other languages, several of which don't even have something similar to WikiProject Anime and manga. Simply because Wikipe-tan is widely known and used, not only by things related to anime and manga. In fact, she wasn't even created with that in mind. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "declaring war" on anybody - I thought that moving the page into WikiProject-space would be a good compromise position and allow the A&M editors freer rein. If that compromise is rejected, so be it. Tone down the rhetoric and the incivility please. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You shoved it over there, with no discussion. After you already got reverted for edits, which were unexplained at first. You're the one being uncivil. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, you have a clear pattern of edit warring over various images on the page. A further looking at the talk page archives shows that you don't even attempted to gain a consensus before removing images. Now, you've made a completely arbitrary move because you seemingly couldn't get your way.[2] This type of behavior is completely unacceptable, especially from someone with an administrator bit. —Farix (t | c) 00:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOLD is policy, not incivility - the move was not "completely arbitrary" or because I "couldn't get [my] way", but an attempt at compromise. It was rejected - so be it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I also oppose the move, and I'm glad to see it moved back. This is a project page, not a WP:ANIME page. WP:BOLD is policy, but you apparently didn't heed the strong caution urged in WP:BOLD#Non-article namespaces and more specifically WP:BOLD#Wikipedia namespace. If you were attempting to compromise, it would have been better to start a discussion and explain what you wanted to do rather than just move the page (and all the archives of the talk page) without any discussion at all, especially when the page doesn't obviously belong where you moved it (see the points made above on this particular issue). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Given your previous edit history on the page and this comment,[3] you were obviously throwing a temper tantrum rather than being bold. Compromise is achieved through discussion, no by spatful actions that will obviously be contentious. —Farix (t | c) 11:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I would strongly advise you against making inappropriate characterizations or attributing motives of which you have no knowledge. I had no reason to believe the move would be contentious, and now that I see that it is I have no intention of moving the page again. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

For those adults in the room who can rise above the level of declaring that an editor active for five years is out to get them and hates them and shouldn't be allowed to stay over mom make her go away she smells, is there really any buy-in for the mascot in question from the community outside of the animanga project? That's really all that we need to answer here. If not, it makes sense for the animanga project to take custodianship of the page in question, as it's undoubtedly associated with that part of the community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Implying that people who disagree with you (or your opinion or an opinion you support) are essentially "children" is not productive. Please refrain from such comments in the future in order to keep the conversation on the level referenced at the beginning of your comments. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was part of my reasoning for moving it. Someone asked above whether the WikiProject wanted the page; I'd be very surprised if the answer was no. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Actully the wikipe-tan image is used over at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines, is used still on Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit's userbox, is used as an admin icon, and is used over at Wikipedia:Admin coaching as wel las other areas. Wikipe-tan gets around on wikipedia, and can not just be called confined to the anime/manga project. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Girl scout Wikipe-tan image addition on another project bit

Rather than get all heated up in an adit war I thought the civil thing to do is take the discussion here, User:Kintetsubuffalo is going around accusing people of trolling, for the addition of the sentence "In March 2010 this image was added to the Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting task force but was later removed." that talks about the history of the image (okay for a page that talks about how wikipe-tan has been used around wikipedia?). So my question would be how is this sentence fingerpointing or a way to provoke others other than saying it was once used on the girlscout project? Id rather not have this goto ANI but nobody likes being called a troll either if what they were doing was in good faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Buffalo is free to head to ANI, but when they look at his using "reverting troll" in edit summaries, I think that the incoming WP:BOOMERANG is going to leave quite a bruise. Tarc (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The consensus of the project was to remove the image. [4] Though the consensus was weak, there was no support from the project to keep the image up. Taking a swipe at a project for removing an image hardly seems like a good faith. Incidentally, the 100th anniversary celebration is over, making the image out of date. EricSerge (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor who made the original edit should have been informed then (I told dino on his talkpage since) Now that the anniversary celebration is over as you have said this should be put to rest. The only thing the sentence states now is that the image was once used on the girlscout project but has since been removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a swipe at the girl scout project, hell they should be congratulated for realizing that it was a pretty bad idea. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The current caption, by my perception seems to take a swipe at the project for removing the image, especially coupled with some of the edit summaries restoring the caption. I propose this alternate text: "Wikipetan celebrating 100 years of Girl Scouts and Girl Guides, used in 2010 for the centennial celebration." It indicates the purpose of the image, and indicates it's past use. EricSerge (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if that is how you are taking it then the new caption you proposed sounds good to me. Although I would add "used in 2010 for the centennial celebration on wikipedia". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipetan celebrating 100 years of Girl Scouts and Girl Guides, used in 2010 for the centennial celebration on Wikipedia." Sounds reasonable to me. EricSerge (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done In the future though if an editor gets upset by another's edit they should inform them on this, User:Dinoguy1000 had made the edit that connected User:Kintetsubuffalo and nobody was informed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I never intended offense or anything of the sort when I expanded and sourced that paragraph; if I had known where the removal discussion was, I would (at the very least) have added a link to it (and, potentially, it would have led to me rewording the whole paragraph). As should be evident from my other edits to this page, my main interest on this topic is exploring and filling out the history of Wikipe-tan on Wikipedia and Wikimedia in general, and I would have gladly rewritten that paragraph in response to a non-confrontational message or edit summary. I certainly have no ill feelings towards Kintetsubuffalo, though they could definitely have been somewhat more graceful about the whole thing. —Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 208.124.90.208 (talk) ^{(what's this?)} 20:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian Wikipe-tan

We are hoping to create a "Christian" image of Wikipe-tan for use as a mascot for the various Christianity projects. I actually have no idea what she might look like - whether this would be in a nun outfit, maybe dressed in Virgin Mary blue, or whatever. Anyone with any drawings they might like to submit can please post them here. I'm hoping to have some sort of vote for project mascot next month, and would love to see as many images presented as possible. But, please, keep it clean guys. ;) John Carter (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You're a little late for April Fools Day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm serious here, believe it or not. I saw the MILHIST project has an image of her in uniform, and kinda wanted something similar. But, yeah, the link above was defective. John Carter (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You should contact User:Niabot and ask him if he would do an image for ya. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering that this style of cartoon character is associated with pedophilia, best make her a Catholic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

To some people yeah I suppose, there have been attempts to link poor wikipe-tan to being a loli for years but to no results. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In general, yes, though this one is merely cute and not overtly risque. Take the fairly modest maid's outfit and rework it a bit, with a habit and a cross necklace, and that should cover it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I also asked over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga and there this image you can also work from. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That would probably do as-is... and it's been on commons for almost 5 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Might want to fix up the expression though and replace the puzzle pieces with regular standard ones used on wikipe-tan. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Change the brown stuff to black and it's practically there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the bit about "keeping it clean" is primarily just a joke about the main image wearing a French Maid outfit. And, yeah, we would welcome as many submissions as possible, inculuding the one above. After all, some kinds of Christians are rather volatile about whether Catholics are Christians. I do figure at least one of the Christianity barnstars will go to whatever image is selected, and probably to any proposed as well. John Carter (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

And, maybe, if the time exists, an image with halo and wings might quite well too. John Carter (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This is dumb

This isn't a real thing you just made it up. Can I just make something up and get a wiki page for my art and drawings? Also its kind of sick. I know its what nips do but do we all have to see it on english wikipedia? Cant this stay on japanese wiki? 50.80.146.188 (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No, yes, and no. If you have a better suggestion draw it yourself. The only reason we have a page is because Wikipe-tan is our unofficial mascot.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an aritcle any more than WP:SPIDERMAN anyway. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"Can I just make something up and get a wiki page for my art and drawings?" If you are talking about for an article sure if you can get some reliable sources to publish your work. Other than that no wikipe-tan is a part of wikipedia's history, and it has been published in a newspaper and a magazine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't even try, Knowledgekid87. Unless you actually think WP should be represented by the wrong country, you are making a big mistake. I, believing WP to be solely the property of the western hemisphere and dear, dear old Jimbo, would have expected a persona, reflecting the USA in its true glory. Instead, you have ruined us all, by considering Japan to be better. If I am correct, the USA made Japan surrender, not the other way around. This means that in order to repent your sins, you must appologize at one and respect that WP was invented in America and not Japan, and send a full reply to my talk page, for I am the humble, obedient drt2012 (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

Why are you replying to something that was discussed over 2 months ago? If you have an issue bring it to my talk page or just make another section here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Plus Wikipedia belong to WORLD, not USA. Even if you insist, Danny, I prefer England instead. :p Oh, and for bringing old WWII stuff for unrelate reason, then Wikipedia should be represent by Vietnam, since it beat USA. XD L-Zwei (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This is lolicon. 24.146.230.25 (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What about wikipe-tan could fall under being lolicon? Showing images of a girl who looks like could be in an anime does not auto mark it as being a loli. I also reverted your edit as there was no discussion about the tag added here and I do not believe it was done in good faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly loli. 24.146.230.25 (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Its a girl in a swimsuit, is it an erotic pose? No, also since when do girls have breasts? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same thing. 24.146.230.25 (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Image in question has no sexual content and is nothing more than a drawing of a female in a bikini - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't that bikini look a bit too small? 24.146.230.25 (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thats your point of view, in any case its still a drawing of an adult. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Technically, girls begin having breasts at an average age of 10.5, but it's sort of moot. I'm pretty sure the whole thing is based on tropes and fiction, not perfect reality. After all, I didn't know the puzzle globe was a girl. tedder (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikinews version?

I really think we need a similar image for wikinews. I also think that image should, if at all possible, be as deliberately evocative of Spider Jerusalem as legally possible, partially because I need to have a picture giving a good indication of my winning personality to put on my user page. :) John Carter (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Im up for it, have any ideas? Maybe a news anchor wikipe-tan? =p - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, some of us at English Wikinews have discussed what News-tan should look like. I've got a fairly detailed list of proposed features, around somewhere, that I've been thinking about digging up to put on a project page at some point. Hadn't gotten around to it yet, of course. --Pi zero (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well im sure there would be those at wikiproject anime and manga (myself included) that are willing to help as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yiddish version

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

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

This article is sexist

I think this article objectifies women, can it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houllich (talk • contribs) 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)

Wikimania

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: [5]. 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)

Redirect from Wikipe-tan in the main space

Don't you think that Wikipe-tan as a redirect will be useful? I do. -- Ата ^(talk) 11:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I do too, feel free to create it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

If you click into the link, you'll see it has been deleted about ten times. The reason is cross-namespace redirects are not allowed. _dk (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh well it is probably for the best, less risk of vandalism. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Referencing Kasuga

The user with the unified login Kasuga, as explained on their Commons user page here, is someone else, the Kasuga in question is currently at User:Kasuga~enwiki and ja:User:Kasuga~jawiki.

I am aware that the userpage links correctly point to User:Kasuga~enwiki. I am, however, wondering what the most elegant solution is for the actual link text and other references. -- thomas.hori (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the potential confusion. I would make the link text as User:Kasuga~enwiki rather than just Kasuga for now until a better solution can be thought up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We can keep the link text as Kasuga and explain the current situation with a footnote. _dk (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That works as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've added such a footnote. -- thomas.hori (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipe

On one of the images of Wikipe-tan, I have noticed that one of those sockpuppet stands says "Wikipe's sock puppet show". I assume "Wikipe" is pronounced as "Wikipedia" without the "dia" bit, but is this how you are supposed to pronounce this name? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I am unsure as the creator is long gone but I pronounce it as "Wiki-pe-tan" here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy belated birthday!

Wikipe-tan just turned 10! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan celebrates her 10th birthday

Ironic, yes?

I wonder how many women voted for this mascot. As Wikipedia currently has only 17% of its articles about women, I find it amusing that a cutesy subservient female was considered by many to represent the whole of Wikipedia. Maybe someone can depict her with a lab coat and glasses? LovelyLillith (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe some wikiprojects depict her in various occupations. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't find it strange here as a majority of girls use cuteness to their advantage. Its an alluring welcoming feeling I get from Wikipe-tan. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

That sums up the whole problem. Cutesy females are not taken seriously in many aspects, and there is some undercurrent or expectation of using that cuteness to be manipulative. There is also the maid fetish role: "Maid cafés were originally designed primarily to cater to the fantasies of male otaku, fans of anime, manga, and video games." Wikipedia is supposed to be a respectable, even scholarly resource for the growth of knowledge, not just a come-hither fantasy of subservience. I know I'm literally in the minority here as Wikipedia is primarily edited by males, but I thought I would point out the potential objectification and offensiveness that this figure could represent to women in a male-dominated environment that is trying to have less gender bias. LovelyLillith (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You cant make everyone in the world happy, maybe Wikipe-tan should have been brown skinned? The best part of a mascot is that her image can be used in different ways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Eh eh, I very clearly see Lillith's point about her being overly-feminine(?). I scrolled through the on-wiki list of Wikipes and the only I thought that made her look bad was the "Christian" one where she is wearing some Quaker homespuns or something. Has anyone solicited Wikiproject Women (which is probably half male though, but they might be more openminded)? L3X1 (distænt write) 22:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Well she isn't going to become a mascot anytime soon so Wiki-projects can do what they like with the images created in her likeness. If you want to create a "tomboy" style Wikipe-tan then go for it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with females being feminine. What I question is the appropriateness of using a mascot that looks more like a known sexual fetish than one that looks like a studious authority. It's a bit akin to having a male model with a banana hammock that says "Wikipedia" on it be the mascot. Both emphasize titillation over intellectual substance. I'm just trying to point out that we could do better. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Nominate the image for deletion. The weebs that write the articles think this is fine. I like Wikipe-tan and add her image to talk pages as part of WP:BIRTHDAY. Generally, the images of her are not sexualized in my opinion. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Which image exactly? Also which articles are you talking about? I find your comment highly offensive if you are referring to fellow editors here on Wikipedia as that would go against WP:AGF and WP:NPA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, everyone. Let's just end this here before it descends into mudslinging. I've put forward my point about Wikipe-tan having been voted on by mostly males. Do I want her gone? No, I'd just prefer that she wasn't in a maid outfit or bikini (as Knowledgekid pointed out to me, her image is actually being used to demonstrate fan service aka "gratuitous titillation"...my whole argument exactly) to represent Wikipedia - something representing brains or education over servitude or lust would be better. As it doesn't appear that many women have spoken about this character, I thought I'd give my two cents worth as to how she could be viewed by us. Does she annoy female editors? You won't know til you ask more of us. Does her existence demonstrate the range of difference in editor attitudes toward what women represent? Certainly. Am I making a blanket statement about all male editors (or females, for that matter)? Of course not. I bring all of this up in the spirit of making Wikipedia more inviting to the women who are already here, as well as trying to shed light on perspectives that may not have been considered. Some may agree with me, some won't. Cheers. LovelyLillith (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

As a point of information, is that a maid uniform? I've honestly never been sure. I've wondered if it might be a Japanese school uniform (or something). --Pi zero (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Needs essay tag

This is not a WP:POLICY page or WP:INFOPAGE. It is thus an WP:ESSAY. The page needs to be tagged with {{essay}} unless an RFC establishes a community consenses to promote it. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

It is more like a dormant proposal as at once point there was serious consideration on creating a "Wikipedia mascot". The page is kept for historical reference but would only become policy if adopted at the pump (which isn't likely). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I can support the {{dormant}} tag. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Underbar dk: It WAS a proposal for a Wikipedia mascot, its now dormant. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan was never seriously under proposal to be Wikipedia's mascot, and Wikipe-tan's entry was entered after Wikipede was declared winner for the WP:MASCOT contest. Rather, Wikipe-tan is a community mascot that has been adopted by various Wikiprojects, and I stand by my decision to remove the template. I tend to agree with OP's assessment that this page is closer to an essay. _dk (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is the link: [6]. I will give time for a response before re-adding the tag. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It is still not a serious proposal. And if you check the timestamps, it is clear Wikipe-tan was added in 2006 while WP:MASCOT said the contest was held in 2002. Also, regardless of whether Wikipe-tan herself was proposed as a Wikipedia mascot or not, this page is not, was not, a proposal. It is a description of a part of Wikipedia culture. _dk (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any 2002 link though on WP:MASCOT, per the source I gave it looks like the contest was held in 2006. There might have been two held which if that is the case then it still would have been a proposal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't buy the logic that if it's not a policy or a guideline that it must be an essay. This page doesn't need any sort of template added to it. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:Policies and guidelines#Role reflects a community consensus to the contrary. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 14:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Billhpike: You are mistaken. That policy says that "Other administration pages in the Wikipedia: namespace" include information pages and historical pages. Policies, guidelines, and essays are not all-inclusive. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The guideline page WP:WPPAGES states The project namespace pages are organized according to their function within the overall project schema. Why should this page be an exception? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The policy is self-contradictory. You can point to that sentence intoning that everything in WP space has to be one of three choices but the sentence I pointed to explicitly indicates otherwise. This was created in 2006 and as the original MfD shows, Wikipedians are perfectly willing to maintain content that shouldn't exist outside of the user namespace. This is not an essay; it's weeb fandom. I'm sorry you don't like it. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The close for the 2011 MFD noted that that this page should be kept since the project-space has numerous examples of pages based around specific sub-groups and minority positions. It follow that this page should be tagged to reflect its status as a minority position. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Another option is to move this page to a sub page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes that could work but Wikipe-tan was originally meant for Wikipedia as a whole. I still stand by my original edit that this should be labeled as a "dormant" proposal, it was once a candidate for a mascot (proposal) but now is kept for historical reasons. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: I see you neglected my point that this page itself is not a proposal. Read the page for yourself, do you see any wording that might be construed as a proposal? Do we want to suggest what the {{dormant}} template is telling potential readers to do, bring up this "proposal" to Village Pump? I certainly don't. I also think it's a false dichotomy that this page has to have one template or another. _dk (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The page isn't a proposal but it documents one, Wikipe-tan was a proposed mascot for Wikipedia according to the links provided. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Great, we agree that this page isn't a proposal. The template stays off. _dk (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

So if we did an RFC and it failed to gain consensus, as would likely be the case, you would support adding the {{dormant}} tag? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting we go through a RFC just so you can put the template up? _dk (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is, nobody is going to suggest that Wikipe-tan be Wikipedia's mascot at this point (as much as I would support it). Why are you so against a tag that calls this page historical? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem I have is the {{dormant}} template calls this page a proposal when this page clearly isn't one and never was, says there is a lack of discussion when there isn't, says Wikipe-tan is historical when she is clearly in active use, and suggests people to revive the "proposal" on the Village Pump (which is disruptive). We will be putting up a ill-suited template that tells lies and gives bad advice just for the sake of putting up a template. _dk (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Content on previous deletions

To editor Billhpike: Per WP:BRD, the correct thing for you to do is discuss, not revert. I have returned status quo ante because the onus is on you, the person adding the content. I think it fair to say that you don't like Wikipe-tan. You seem to feel the need to place all sorts of prefaces and explications that some people in the community don't like it. My suggestion to you is to go edit somewhere else. If you can show there's consensus for the content you added, then fine. Otherwise, go find another hobby. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

We can discus how you dislike the previous community consensus , but per WP:OWN no one needs your ”consent” to change this page, as you claim in your edit summary (Special:diff/840863249) — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there a compromise version of the text you would support? If not, I will start an RFC to achieve a community consensus to re-add the content. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Start an RfC. The top of this talk page already lists the multiple deletion discussions, so I see no need to add mention of it on the page, itself. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)