Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan

Wiki-tan 3d model?

Normally I wouldn't post "commentary" in a talk page, but I'm going to assume that with the resurgence of VTubers there's bound to be a 3D model for Wikipe-tan (or if it hasn't been made someone can go ahead and make one). And if it gets created, believe me it's both getting a proper rig and getting added to the page, rig included. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

There certainly are more than one example of libre VTuber creator software, but as far as I know nobody has used one to create Wikipe-tan. In fact, the only 3d model of Wikipe-tan that I am aware of is that used to make file:3DWikipe-tan.jpg, which has been lost to time. Perhaps someone has made a Koikatsu model or something and simply hasn't published it widely yet, however. Arlo James Barnes 23:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

What images should we feature and how?

@Knowledgekid87 and Geni: Talk it through. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to be selective yet. The numbers of new 3rd party images aren't really a problem. 31 in 16 years (or about 2 a year) means it will take a long time to break 500. Also its a freely licensed character. The whole point is that third parties can create versions.©Geni (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Searching Commons for Wikipe-tan results in these images, I don't see a need to display on this page any images not done by Kasuga, with the possible exception of those in use by WikiProjects. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

including them here gives them significantly greater find-ability.©Geni (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay... can you prove this or is this just an opinion? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

We should keep the page as is without the "Wikipedia by others" and "Cosplay". I just want to point out that even WITH these categories included, there are still more images on Wikimedia commons that could be argued to include here. Should we include File:Bastike-tan.jpg, File:Naked Wikipe-tan (censored).png (why do we even have this?) or File:On The Internet Nobody Knows You're A Nudist.png for example? These could be considered versions of Wikipe-tan by "others", and is something that just adds fuel to generate another drawn out WP:MfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Those are both derivatives so things you apparently support including.©Geni (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Just leave it as is, there’s way too many fanarts and cosplays and photoshops to add without cluttering the page, and some of them (as mentioned, PS yay I’m famous!) are NSFW at this point, and I think the page should be SFW per WP:GRATUITOUS (I obviously don’t have a problem with Wikipe-tan sans apparel but it’s unnecessary to illustrate the topic) Dronebogus (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes you is famous ^-^, seriously though... you get the point. We don't need to include everything just because its there already on Wikimedia commons. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

31 over 16 years is a unusual definition of way too many.©Geni (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

If you get this out of projectspace, anyone is welcome to have a personal or shared gallery fawning over Wikipe-tan all they want, I guess - But we certainly don't need fandom galleries in projectspace. Furthermore, anyone uploading/using explicitly sexual pictures of Wikipedia-as-a-cartoon-girl-mascot-thing should be sanctioned for bringing the project into disrepute (and being generally creepy). Feel free to take my opinion with a grain of salt, though, because I know that somehow there will always be consensus to keep even the most chillingly embarrassing and inappropriate versions of this thing. I'm usually good at compartmentalizing that reality, keeping it separate from the rest of my impression of the Wikipedia community, but since noticing that Commons has multiple categories dedicated to sexualized Wikipe-tans, I'm disgusted anew. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Your loathing of Wikipe-tan is well established, but I feel like it’s kind of an overreaction to think naked anime girls are going to “bring the project into disrepute”. Yes there’s criticism of pornography on commons and “overly sexual” aspects of Wikipedia culture making female contributors uncomfortable, but I feel like in practice the biggest sex-related faux pas in Wikipedia history had absolutely nothing to do with Wikipe-tan, and the only Wikipe-tan-related high-profile incident was about a lolicon version which is very different than a sexualized adult version. Dronebogus (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Which means that an additional advantage of including them here is that people are less likely go and search for them on commons with all the problems that can cause.©Geni (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I am fine with keeping historically made images (and those related) by Kasuga on the project page as it relates to the original idea. Anything beyond that goes into the "why isn't my drawing on the page..? sphere". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

the others (and the cosplay) date back as far as 2006 so at at least as historic as Kasuga. The "why isn't my drawing on the page..? sphere" is something we can deal with when it happens.©Geni (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Its already happening... there are images on commons that aren't here for whatever reasons. This isn't some kind of art gallery as there are other websites and hosts for this kind of stuff. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This is some kind of art gallery and the fact it has survived 3 AFDs addresses the other websites argument.©Geni (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Believe me I know... I was there in favor of keeping the "Wikipe-tan by others" at the time as there were not as many [1]. The images for that particular section have since doubled, which takes away from the main subject at hand. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

My take on the issue: We probably need to cut down on the "Wikipedia-tan by others" section, but leave it. The purpose of this page is (1) to document the character, and (2) "do we have art of Wikipedia-tan doing something?", so various projects can use that. For an example of something that can be left out, File:Wikipe-tan Loves Pride!.png is probably not good for inclusion here, because it's more "sexy" than "cute", and thus probably NSFW, and of a much lower quality of face and hair drawing; further, it's redundant with stuff in the existing "derivatives" section. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 21:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I’ve improved the image since the original post (new: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Wikipe-tan_Loves_Pride%21.png vs. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/9/90/20220204091411%21Wikipe-tan_Loves_Pride%21.png) Dronebogus (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion: Move anything that isn't an unaltered original by Kasuga to one of two subpages: one for translations and minor edits of the originals (crops, palette swaps, etc.), and one for wholly new derivative works (cosplays would be on this latter page, for instance). Then there's room to divide these pages into H1 sections by creator / editor. If any section contains an image for which we want to apply a content warning, a hatnote can be added to it. How does that sound? Arlo James Barnes 23:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that runs foul of WP:GALLERY. Maybe just link to the WikiSisters gallery page on Commons? Dronebogus (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point (although that section seems to talk mostly about mainspace, despite covering enwiki as a whole in scope). At least then there will be less duplication of effort. A pipedream would be for one page to be maintained at metawiki and transcluded in all the language editions with ?uselang= parameters, but I don't think that's a thing. Anyway, for the purposes of a project namespace page specifically, it seems sufficient to have the intro paragraph explaining who this blue person is with a few Kasuga illustrations for visual interest; then an editor can satisfy their curiosity if someone namedrops Wikipe-tan elsewhere and promptly get back to editing -- or continue onto Commons if they want more. Arlo James Barnes 13:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay so.... it seems we have a consensus to either not include the images at all or to include the images in a limited fashion. I don't see a consensus to keep all of the images, nor do I recommend a discussion in this section regarding separate pages as that can be done in a new section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Regarding the 'images in a limited fashion' bit, I was rereading the article and quite a bit of the text refers to individual images as being, well if not quite WP:N-style notable, then at least of note. What if we included such images inline rather than in gallery mode? This is already the case with the one that had been a 'featured' image in 2006/2007. Arlo James Barnes 14:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good. I feel like this is devolving into “how many Wikipe-tans can dance on the head of a pin” though and am just going to WP:BOLDly edit the page to include AJB’s proposal now. Dronebogus (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with this idea as implemented, since there's just not enough vertical space to include so many thumbnails inline, and it damages the chronological integrity of the gallery to move only a few images up. If what I propose below is implemented however, I think the CVU roundel can stay. — Goszei (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I reverted the changes as I also disagree with the blown up images. These detract from the page more than help readers understand Wikipe-tan. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I find myself taking a minimalist view here; I think that only Kasuga originals should be included on this page in their current gallery format, and that everything else (fan art, derivatives, cosplay, and perhaps crops) should go on the Wiki-sisters gallery page on Commons, to which we should have a big and very visible link. As someone who cherishes all the fan art that has been made and has spent some time curating the galleries on this page, I think this is the best way to document the major history and keep the works accessible to those who want to view them, while staying well within the bounds of project space for those who take a more "srs bsns" view, and avoiding the spats around inclusion criteria that have popped up.

Side note: I have to laugh a bit at all the ruckus that Wikipe-tan and her moé qualities have kicked up over the years; for me, she is a nostalgic relic from what feels like a wildly-different age of the Internet, and I want to keep this page as controversy-free as possible for those who feel the same. — Goszei (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I've come around to the points made below by Bluerasberry and Arlo about remixing, amateur contribution, and arts-and-crafts charm being important to the spirit of Wikipedia as a whole. I think we've established a strong desire here among multiple editors to keep the gallery curated, and importantly with mostly the same goals in mind, so I think keeping around 70 like Bluerasberry suggests would be fairly simple and uncontroversial. — Goszei (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

My first preference is that this page be deleted, but such an outcome is unlikely to gain consensus.

My second preference is something along the lines of what Goszei proposes: a minimalist gallery on this page with the bulk of subsequent fan art moved to a gallery on Commons. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 07:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support gallery of 70 individually curated image thumbnails In the past few days there has been fluctuation between about 100-200 thumbnail images on the page. Including everything is too much. I think going down to 70 images would be a big but appropriate cut. 70 is less than any time I see in recent history, so it is a number which can start conversations on curation while also being high enough to avoid drastic changes or hard curation decisions. While I think Kasuga images should be included because they are foundational and high quality, I do not think all those images should be here, nor do I think images should only come from that artist. The nature of wiki and fan art is to encourage remixing and amateur contributions, so we should have various representations including weird ones and ones of lower technical quality to demonstrate that anyone can contribute more. People who would like to contribute more should start by posting to Commons, where all the extra pictures can go into any other gallery. Bluerasberry (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Personally, I think this page is fun. The original drawings are well-done, the cosplay is cool, the fan art is cool, people seem to enjoy drawing Wikipedia as an anime character (if there's a gender issue, I would be happy to draw Wikipedia as a male anime character). As for horny stuff, it sucks; I agree that this is broadly outside the scope of "fun page about the mascot character", and indeed outside the scope of the project. I don't think we should have those anywhere, certainly not here. However, I have to confess I don't really understand the current dispute. As this is not a mainspace page, it's not clear to me that policies and guidelines about image galleries in articles are applicable here. Wikipedia is not printed on paper -- does it really make a difference? People do not come to this page because they're trying to do serious Wikipedia business, and get interrupted by all the pictures -- Wikipe-tan drawings are not getting spammed into AIV or ArbCom cases. This is a page specifically about the mascot character, so I don't get how drawings of the mascot character would clutter it up. Would you pay to get into an exclusive cigar lounge and then complain that everyone was smoking cigars?

At the same time, it's hard for me to get too worked up about this; as others have mentioned, there are plenty of Commons categories if you want to find fanart or cosplay or whatever. I think that a lot of the images (like Wikipe-tan in various national costumes) are useful to people making logos for WikiProjects and the like -- but still, I don't know how much ink I can spill over this before it becomes embarrassing. jp×g 08:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's more of a fun page than it is a 'serious' page, but that doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose. If it has any reason for existing besides historical inertia, it is to introduce editors to Wikipe-tan who before knew nothing or very little about the character as a mascot, or as a lightning rod for community adoration and/or disdain. Early in the page's edit history it was feasible to add any and all images of WP-tan since there weren't that many and they were basically all relevant to such an objective. However, the images available now have both diversified away from simple depiction and have also multiplied both beyond a coherent imageset and beyond technical constraints on the number of media displayable on one page. Since we literally cannot show all images, we must necessarily exercise editorial selection. To be clear, that would/does happen on the Commons gallery too, but galleries there are designed to showcase various media about a topic. Whereas here, we can establish a scope and stick to it. I agree though that it needn't be just the slickest images that make the cut, there are definitely some that have a more arts-and-craftsy charm and also show what the community use of the character is like. Arlo James Barnes 16:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

curation (cont.)

I put an editnotice in place so that whatever set of pics we decide on is clear as being representative, not exhaustive. If anyone here knows a handy template to link to the Commons gallery, that might also be handy to add in. update: removed it, I thought an editnotice was those things that pop up when you load the source or VisEdit but I guess not? Arlo James Barnes 11:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

this isn't an article but this isn't an otaku page, either

To editor Melodia: Regarding this dispute about unsourced content on this page: the material looks to me like fan service and probably afoul of WP:UNDUE. I understand this isn't an encyclopedia article but how much tolerance do you think the community will allow? Please note the prior discussion about the many images removed from here. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Melodia: I am going to have to agree with Chris on this one regarding sources. Adding WP:RS gives Wikipe-tan more notability outside of her fanbase (WP:FANCRUFT would still apply here). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

A list of popular culture appearances outside of “serious” appearances would be interesting, but I can see it devolving rather quickly into a meta version of “where’s my fanart” Dronebogus (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)