Talk:Fan service/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Spoiler warning needed?

A spoiler warning is useless if you don't know what narrative work is going to be spoiled, since someone who wants to avoid spoilers won't know if they've already read/seen the work in question already or not. Either the warning should be clarified to say what works are spoiled, or the spoilers should be deleted. (I guess it's in reference to the homage section; those could probably be altered to omit the narrative details of the exact circumstances in which the homages occur, and simply keep the description of the homage itself.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.203.77.161 (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

Wrong Definition

This is probably not very important, but サービス　has nothing to do with anime or manga. In japanese it is used as any form of gift when you consume something. For example, if I go to a restaurant and i get a free desert, that is a サービス.

"サービス (n,vs,adj-no) (1) service; support system; (2) goods or services without charge;",

I do not want to sound rude, but this is a encyclopedia. I understand there are many people that are otaku and want to make their contribution to wikipedia, but in this case there is a complete misunderstanding of the definition and use of "サービス".

Nehelek (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Technicals

I think this section is mostly pointless. The example of lagrange points in gundam is real science. How is real science fanservice? Should they have made up new terms? The Docter Who example is good as that is an easter egg.--Pukgreenuniform 07:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Being More Specific

How many shows have guns or cars? Even shows that have specific guns or cars? Just name the gun or name the car. That's all I ask. --Karmafist 03:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Please explain, a little more specifically, what on earth it is you're asking. I mean, the basic concept doesn't seem very hard to grasp; there are people who will buy magazines solely because the magazine has lots of detailed, loving photos of guns. Or motorcycles. Or automobiles. Or vintage automobiles. Or aircraft. You get the idea, I hope. Therefore, it can be considered "fanservice" when a manga or anime includes detailed, loving illustrations of guns/motorcycles/automobiles/aircraft/et cetera. Now, exactly what is it that you wish to see, without which you are refusing to let that basic explanation into the article? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I mean more specifically by "what you mean why these 'people buy magazines solely because the magazine has lots of detailed, loving photos of guns, motorcycles or automobiles, etc'" and at least say which guns, motorcycles, automobiles or whatever these people are caring so much about. I've lost track of how many animes have guns in them, Gunsmith Cats probably would be considered significant since Rally Vincent owns a gun shop, but we can get even more exact since she uses a specific, trademark gun. I should have made that edit in the first place.

Ah, so you mean instead of "Hayao Miyazaki's work often contains detailed images of aircraft", you mean "Hayao Miyazaki's work often contains detailed images of aircraft, such as the refitted Dornier DO X around which the Lupin III episode "Flight of the Albatross" revolves..." That example's not quite accurate (it was based on the DO X but not a DO X itself) but is that the sort of thing you mean? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

If you'd like to respond and continue this discussion, please do so, but try not to use the word "loving" so much. It's getting kind of creepy...Karmafist 03:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, so are some of those magazines. =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

lol, that's true. Karmafist 14:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The Gainax Bounce?

I have to admit, reading over this and the Gunbuster article, I have to argue the point that jiggly breasts wasn't introduced in Gunbuster, as the Daicon IV bunny girl jiggles a bit 5 years prior, and wasn't even invented by Gainax. I'm pretty sure that Fujiko Mine bounced quite a bit ten years before Noriko did. However, I would concede the fact that Gunbuster was the first to introduce it to American audiences, as it, Appleseed, and Dangioh, were released by U.S. Renditions, the first American release of unaltered Japanese animation.--YoungFreud 11:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Correct Definition?

"a vaguely defined term...to refer to elements in a story that are unnecessary to a storyline, but designed to amuse or excite the audience."

By this definition, wouldn't any sort of joking or humor that doesn't directly further the story be considered fan service? It this the intended definition?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.29.161 (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Gym Shorts

Just a quick note, mentioned in this article are female gym shorts (usually a part of a school uniform). They are usually called "buruma" (I've never heard them called bloomers before reading this article.) I don't know the history of the word, I would appreciate being educated on this point if anyone has more information.

"Buruma" is a loan-word from English, borrowed as "bloomer" (Japanese generally uses the borrowed singular form as both singular and plural--even if, as in this case, the singular doesn't exist) converted to Japanese syllables as closely as possible. The first "u" is added because Japanese syllables can only have a single consonant; the "l" becomes an "r" because they're the same sound in Japanese; the "er" becomes "a," as it often does, because "burumaru" would sound much less like the original word (especially pronounced in a London/HC accent).

Imagine someone from the British Foreign Service explaining to someone from the Japanese Education Ministry, through their mutual embarrassment, that it's traditional for girls in gym class to run around in their bloomers....

Oddly, when the word is translated back into English, it usually ends up as "Bruma," "Bluma," or even "Blume." As in the Dragon Ball Z character "Bluma Briefs." Go figure. --76.216.96.82 05:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan

Moved from WP:ANI:

Regarding fan service, User:Ned Scott insists that adding three pictures of Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan does not constitute a violation of WP:SELF; I'm fairly sure it does, as Wikipe-tan is not notable outside the Wikipedia community. (If she were, she'd have an article by now, I'm quite certain of that.) I'm fairly certain I'm in the right here, but I'd like to hear some more opinions on this. Thanks. —Nightstallion (?) 09:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Those pictures are very cute, but you're right: They're a self-reference. I've removed them again. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 09:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I view them as self-referential as well. -- Samir धर्म 09:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The following is copied from my talk page:

Wikipe-tan is not a self reference in the article fan service. She's a character called Wikipe-tan that is drawn showing some types of cosplay fan service. That is a far cry from saying "this Wikipedia article is...". Just because something is named after Wikipedia does not make it a self reference issue. You're totally missing the point of WP:SELF. -- Ned Scott 09:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you are. Wikipe-tan is not at all notable outside Wikipedia, and as such including it/her in articles is a clear violation of WP:SELF. Take it to WP:AN/I if you're unhappy with my interpretation of the rules. —Nightstallion (?) 09:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There you go, I've put it up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan_and_WP:SELF for discussion, just in case you mistrust my opinion. shrugs —Nightstallion (?) 09:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Being notable is not the issue. She's being used as a visual example, such as a pie chart. Are most pie charts notable? Is this pirate notable at all?

Also, from WP:SELF: "Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important. If you read about Shakespeare's works, you are not interested in reading about Wikipedia's policies or conventions. If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia."

In addition, this is a style guideline meant to address specific concerns. This is not about ignoring the existence of Wikipedia or anything that might have been inspired by Wikipedia. Wikipe-tan doesn't mention the word Wikipedia at all, and only uses Wikipedia as a theme for her hair ties! -- Ned Scott 09:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right that original illustrations are not a breach of WP:SELF, of course. Still, you're using a fan-service-mascot of Wikipedia to exemplify fan service, not a neutral image without any special meaning attached to it (as is the case in lolicon). (Note: I've also copied this conversation to the WP:AN/I thread now and would suggest continuing the conversation there.) —Nightstallion (?) 09:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Self references negatively affect articles, how do images of a little girl with wikiball puzzle pieces in her hair negatively affect this article? Also, this is NOT an issue for administrator intervention, this is a style dispute. You're really stretching here, WP:SELF was not meant to strictly forbid anything referencing wikipedia, especially something that is indirectly related, such as a drawing inspired by wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 10:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition, several editors do not feel that her inclusion is a self-reference issue via her image's featured picture candidacy, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan. -- Ned Scott 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

First thing: please stop edit warring, Ned Scott in particular is in danger of breaking WP:3RR. Secondly, it's worth pointing out that Wikipe-tan's images are unique amomg most of our animé images in that they are free use, whereas many of those in animé-related articles are fair use (and tenuous fair use in articles like Animé). She should certainly be used instead of a fair use image. That leaves the question of whether any images should be used at all, which seems to be the alternative in this article.

And personally, I think that while the edit Ned is reverting to doesn't actually show much, the swimsuit or school uniform pictures do demonstrate fan service, being an established character dressed in cosplay for no apparent reason. I'm not a nerd expert on animé, but as I understand it, a "neutral image without any special meaning" like the lolicon picture wouldn't be fanservice. According to the lead section, fanservice "[refers] to elements in a story that are unnecessary to a storyline" - not quite sure if I'm describing this right, but drawing a random girl in a swimsuit isn't fanservice, whereas the episode of Nadesico where they all go to the beach (example chosen purely because it's one of the few I've seen) is fanservice. Likewise, Wikipe-tan drawn wearing a swimsuit is fanservice - if we tried to draw a 'neutral' alternative, it wouldn't be. Three is overblown though. I've tried to edit the article to show what I mean. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on both points. --GunnarRene 15:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can agree on that compromise after having thought it through. —Nightstallion (?) 18:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the images only have to be an example of the concepts, they don't have to be an image of a well known character. The point of three examples was to show one character being used with these different outfits, using one image takes away from the example. Whether or not this is a true definition of fan service or not isn't the point, it's if she's a self-reference or not. I don't see how using one image is a "compromise" since any images of Wikipe-tan would be an issue if she was a self-reference. I understand what you are saying, but that isn't the issue here. I'll gladly defend the three images as a good example, but under a different talk heading as to not confuse the issues. -- Ned Scott 19:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think including two (edit: or three) images would significantly improve the illustration. While including Wikipe-tan in her 'normal' maid costume would provide a comparison, frankly I think it's pretty obvious that she's drawn wearing a swimsuit for the sake of wearing a swimsuit, and an extra picture would just be unnecessary clutter. Plus if the images are stacked vertically they start extending beyond the section they're actually illustrating. Now please stop making me talk about how many outfits we should show a cartoon drawing of a little girl wearing, I feel all creepy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So, if I understand this right, there is no issue of this being a self-reference? That is where the dispute occurred, it wasn't about how many images, but using Wikipe-tan at all. I'm definitely still going to debate using three images, but I'll save that for later. For now, are we past the self-reference dispute? -- Ned Scott 05:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, that's a bit of a double standard there to tell me to "stop edit waring" and say nothing to Nightstallion. I'm sorry if I reverted knee-jerk reactions that occurred before discussion. I hardly find that "warring", and I'd never go past the 3RR. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about the self-reference thing myself. I think it's nice that we have pictures that can be used freely in this way without worrying about trademark or copyright. And my warning to stop edit warring applied to everyone involved - at the time you were the only one who was going to break WP:3RR with your next revert, however. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I snapped at you about the edit warring comment. I see your point on the cluttering concern, not sure if I'm convinced on it, but in either case I'm glad the whole "self-reference" thing has been cleared up. -- Ned Scott 10:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Instant solution: Make a composite image of her in her normal outfit (school uniform or maid) and her swimsuit. That is possible since she's GDFL. Other alternative would to have several non-free fair use images....--GunnarRene 06:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I still prefer just one image. Partly because of the clutter thing I mentioned above, but partly because according to the list that the image illustrates, both her "normal outfits" can be used in fanservice as well, so I genuinely think that it could be confusing with a composite and the point of the illustration is obvious without it :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support using the single image. And while using that image may be a self-reference, I don't think we have better, free alternatives, and moving from free to non-free is generally opposed. --tjstrf 01:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Er, completely aside to the apparent self-reference issue (which I do not agree with, personally), is anyone taking notice of the fact that Wikipe-tan is a little girl? Is it really appropriate to use her as an example of sexual fanservice? Go ahead and illustrate the section under dispute, but not with... well, her! --90.240.34.177 05:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all fanservice is sexual. Originally her inclusion was the "painfully cute" fanservice kind of example. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Little girl characters can't do (sexual) fanservice? News to me. Besides, it doesn't have to be sexual to be fanservice. --tjstrf talk 05:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I never said they didn't, I'm just saying we don't have to do it, do we? If she was an example of 'cute' then I suppose that's fine. I was just uncomfortable sticking her in a swimsuit next to the section discussing panty shots and jiggling breasts. Is that going to be clarified, then? --90.240.34.177 05:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe Ned Scott switched it out for one of the maid fetish images. --tjstrf talk 05:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

...and yet we're still in the realms of fetish. Huh. --90.240.34.177 05:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's cute-fanservice, and maid is her default look anyways. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't say it's not representative. She's an OS-tan, their costumes are generally fanservice/fetishy outfits of some type. Schoolgirl, maid, school swimsuit, whatever. (I'm looking for santa suit and kimono Wikipe-tans myself) --tjstrf talk 05:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I still think it's a gray area between cute and sexy. By the way, I just noticed that cosplay is a subheading under sexual.. I had not noticed that before.. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so it's not? That's better. --90.240.34.177 14:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of beginning to make sense... moekko, yes? --90.240.34.177 14:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys do know that the different computer/internet-tans are mostly from all over the internet, and not just their respective websites, right? I mean, look at the OS-tans. They weren't made in their respective companies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.242.28 (talk • contribs)

May and Dawn

Should May and Dawn's fanservice be listed here? Because they've had some fanservice about their appearance. May about her breast size and Dawn about her skirt length. Should they be worth mentioning here? --Coconutfred73 04:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No. They're hardly fanservicey designs at all. Compare to, say, anything Oh! Great does (artist for Tenjo Tenge, Air Gear, Ikkitousen, etc.) and you'll see what I mean. --tjstrf talk 05:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok then how about we add an Other Fan Service section and put them there? --Coconutfred73 05:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Because they really aren't notable instances of fan service. Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu might be, I suppose. --tjstrf talk 05:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the people at the IGN board seem to notice pretty good. Yet again, why not add the Electric Tale Of Pikachu along with it? We can call it Pokemon Fan service. --Coconutfred73 05:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

All right, listen closely here: POKEMON IS NOT A FAN SERVICE SERIES. AT ALL. (Except for The Electric Tale of Pikachu, of course.)

Seriously, forgive my bluntness, but on a fanservice scale of 1-10, Pokemon is maybe a one-half. Mentioning it here would serve no purpose, would not illustrate the concept of fan service, and would just misguide people trying to figure out what it was. We don't care if the twelve year olds on IGN think Dawn is hot. --tjstrf talk 06:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fanservice or not, we don't need to list every example of fanservice in the fanservice article. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Then where do we list it? --Coconutfred73 06:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't. --Eyrian 07:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WHY DOES EVERYONE THINK THAT MAY'S CHEST IS HUGE?!?! IT ISNT!! As such, this should not be put in the article, considering the fact that other fictions have actual stuff a whole bunch "Sexier" then may! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.25.70 (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It may not be as huge as oh, say, Prima's chest, but it's certainly far too big for someone her age. Out of all the characters in the series with big breasts, the only one whose even close to May's age is Marina (from Legend of Thunder.).

Still, good point (though, not good enough since this is an article dedicated to fanservice as a whole. I mean, it never really stated it had to be a Fanservice Series, it just said it's "Fanservice", which implies that it deals with any kind of fanservice.). So, I'd argue that they may be considered valid examples in regards to fanservice, regardless if the series is 1.5 fanservice or 9.5. 66.32.165.13 (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

content vs lead

The content is not reflected by the lead here, imo. We have the section Homage and some content in the other sections, that we might need to move if we want to keep the lead. Is fan service limited to the the Japanese sexual excitement thing or does it include homage to works of respected, say, directors? Do we cover the latter one with the word 'amuse' in the lead? Deniz^T_C 17:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Smith/Tarantino

On a side note to the mention of Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarantino, each of them have some tie to anime in at least one of their respective films: most obviously, Tarantino's Kill Bill, which has an entire animated scene; and Smith's Mallrats, in which Stan Lee plays a supporting role as the "comic book genius" that the main character is eager to meet. I don't know if it's worth adding, but I thought I should mention it. Zchris87v 14:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Questionable POV

This article seems to be written in some parts of the POV that fan service is bad. The opening parts seem ok but mainly "Current Issues" is where the article gets muddled. I noticed this because I personally was aware of the term but this article help to flesh it out more then what I had picked up on. But once I got to this section I felt upset by what it was saying. And since it lacks sources I think its clear the POV had shifted from neutral to seeing fan service as a negative thing.68.226.125.194 02:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Webcomics

The term fan service has also been appropriated by the webcomic community. Perhaps this should be mentioned as well?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.174.237 (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Just A Small Note

Other Anime Series Notable for their Fan service would include: Cowboy Bebop, Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z and GT. As well as Pokemon and Digimon.With that, with in the series Cowboy Bebop Session Eleven: "Toys In the Attic" contains many instances of Fan service in respect to science fiction and Horror movie, television, music and novels. Some of these instance would include the character Spike searching for the "bizarre blob of black slime"(cited from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cowboy_Bebop_episodes) with the motion sensor, this situation appears as a tribute to the movies of the "Alien" movie Franchise.

AKINA70 (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Fanservice Possibility?

Is there a chance that the use of the Van Allen belt as a crucial part of Zorndyke's doomsday plot in Blue Submarine No. 6, might be a bow to the the movie Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (1961)? I think more research is required.--AKIRA70 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, I really need to source that pic.

You guys said that you wanted a source, I did as you said you wanted (even if I thought posting a pic of some bimbo stripping gleefully was a very bad idea), It got reverted because you said it was OR, even though stuff like Vegeta giving that hint in regards to Frieza's forms, the various uses of implied in the Mega Man ZX character lists, and others should be counted as OR. Heck, MelicansMatkin actually said this in regards to sourcing episodes even IF that line was OR:

"The episode itself would be enough of a source. MelicansMatkin (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC) "

If sourcing an episode counts as a source despite technically being OR, this does as well.

Besides, I need all the details in regards to how I need to source it, as you just said it's OR.

My philosophy is, anything with facts (which her being happy about taking her clothes off is undeniably such, even a ten year old recognizes that.) should be sourced. It's only when it's a blatant lie when it shouldn't be sourced.

As for WP:OTHERCRAP, who cares? It's still part of Wikipedia, which means that what's good for one article is good for ALL articles, regardless of projects or anything. All laws are bound to every single living being, or in this case, every single article. Besides, they are guidelines, not actual laws, so I suggest we get rid of them (or if we have to keep them, then promote them to actual laws/rules.), my philosophy towards laws and who should follow them is "what's good for the goose is good for the gander.", which means, anything held accountable by one person is accountable by all people, regardless of race, religion, economic status, political status, sex, and pretty much every single thing.

Weedle McHairybug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.165.13 (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If I could immediately remove all Original Research from Wikipedia, I would. However, I cannot. I select and choose the places where I can start and make headroads from there. It is unfortunate for your desire to add original research happened to be to the Fan Service article which is one of the places that I have decided will be on my Original Research patrol. As you can see, the article is tagged as needing better sourcing, and many unsourced claims have been tagged as "citation needed" and will unltimately be removed if sourcing isnt provided. Your complaints about other articles not meeting our guidelines will not prevent me from applying the guidelines and policies here, so you can stop such requests/demands and instead put your efforts to finding published material in reliable sources that makes the point you are hoping to make. Or you can take your desire to scrap our policies up on the appropriate policy talk pages and work to gain consensus to eliminate it, but you would probably have more success pushing a drop of water uphill.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I just saw this and want to make sure I understand the gist of what you are saying is that "if you can't verify some statement X", do not edit the article to add statement X? NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 21:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(some of this previous conversation has taken place in edit summaries and IP talk pages before becoming centralized here.) Essentially, yes. If some analysis or idea has not been published by someone else, we cannot include it. If we link to a picture of a woman taking off her pants we can say "it is a woman taking off her pants" (<-Primary source and no analysis, but also not encyclopedic and so not "includable"). But we cannot make the interpretation that the picture is "fan service". If someone in Slate.com or Newsweek or some other Reliable Source discusses that picture and uses the description "fan service" then we can quote the Slate.com or Newsweek article that says such a picture is "fan service".

Use of primary sources for Wikipedia articles is generally gonna be a no-no.-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering how some people have no qualms of using the episodes/movies themselves as a source, should we use that rationale for that pic? Also, If needs be, even though I'll completely hate myself for even doing this, I could rent "LHA" to find the scene in question, and then post a quote from Kanako Urashima that fitted onto the scene, you know, if that counts as a source (along with that comment in regards to her gleefully stripping [since, even you have to admit, Kanako seemed like she was quite glad in regards to taking her clothes off (grr... I hate her and that series), I mean, what else could she be happy about?)?

Basically, let me know what would be a good way of sourcing the movie itself while at the same time including the pic. -Weedle Mchairybug —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.165.13 (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree here... if stripping in Love Hina (or anything by Akamatsu) is fanservice, so is sex in a porn film. ^_~ arimareiji (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, the way to include content is to find it in a reliable source. Find someone else who has analysed the movie or whatever and called it "fan service". -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This someone else, can this someone else be... ohh, I don't know, a reviewer on IMDb, someone in real life, someone who owns a fansite, or something? Just asking, since I know a few people who are online who are fans of Love Hina (Keitaru of Pokecommunity comes to mind), and even fewer own fansites (like Keitaru, for example). -Weedle McHairybug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.165.13 (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia: WP:RS. No blogs, no forum posts, potentially the main entry in IMBD but not the community entries. Reliable sources are those that have some type of edotorial oversight and reputation for fact checking. (p.s. I usually include links for a reason. the link to reliable sources has been here for you about 4 or 5 times already)-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I got a reply from Keitaru via PM, and he pretty much said that, at least in the case of Love Hina, the emotions can be interpreted as fanservice, in one sense (This was in reply to my question about whether the emotional state about the characters being... well... you know is considered fanservice by him or by any of the fanbase). He did say it's digging pretty deep, though. In any case, whether it should be considered a source or not now lies in your hands. Weedle_McHairybug

Your claim of a personal correspondence? Clearly not a reliable source. Again, please read our guidelines about what constitutes a reliable source: WP:RS. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not? You're the one who said it had to be a person who has seen it, as well as the fact that this person also had to have the same opinion as mine. I gave it to you, if that's not what you wanted, you shouldn't have mentioned it. Heck, newspapers are, in one sense, personal coorespondances, and yet you don't deny that it's a Reliable Source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.165.13 (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC) EDIT: sigh, OK, here's the source you wanted, just to prove it's not a personal claim: http://www.pokecommunity.com/private.php?do=showpm&pmid=2703020

Clearly not a reliable source. Read our guidelines. (I will just copy this and continue pasting it in until there is some sign that you have read our guidelines. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's not a reliable source, Then what did you mean by this comment, and why did you even bother to mention it if it didn't fit Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources?:

"Find someone else who has analysed the movie or whatever and called it "fan service"."

Last time I checked, Keitaru is that "someone else who has analysed the movie", and he also said it's considered fanservice by the fanbase. I'm guessing the only reason you aren't allowing it in is because you don't want it in, since you'll think you're wrong about Fanservice. I've seen how people tell others a suggestion, and yet, when they do exactly what they said, they take it back, since they'll admit they were wrong about their beliefs, and probably be considered a bad editor as a result, so they try to claim they are right.

I have read the guidelines in regards to reliable sources, and believe me, this fits as a secondary source (it comes from a person who is very knowledgable of the series, has watched that movie (Maybe not for a while, but still.), and even admitted that her emotions in regards to the situation (or any of the females in that franchise, for that matter), are considered fanservice. Besides, if you were truly as knowledgable to guidelines as you claim to be, you should have eliminated this article a LONG time ago, since it clearly deals with fanwank, which is not allowed. Good night.

Clearly not a reliable source. Read our guidelines. (I will just copy this and continue pasting it in until there is some sign that you have read our guidelines. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC) [pasting was done 09:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)]

Allow me to reiterate my point:

I have read the guidelines in regards to reliable sources, and believe me, this fits as a secondary source (it comes from a person who is very knowledgable of the series, has watched that movie (Maybe not for a while, but still.), and even admitted that her emotions in regards to the situation (or any of the females in that franchise, for that matter), are considered fanservice. Besides, if you were truly as knowledgable to guidelines as you claim to be, you should have eliminated this article a LONG time ago, since it clearly deals with fanwank, which is not allowed. Good night.

Now stop acting like I don't have some sign of knowing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.165.13 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

technical?

How the hell is the use of lagrange points in gundam a nod to fans? That is stupid. it's called SCIENCE! Using the correct terms is hardly a nod to nerdy fans. This whole section seems to be added for no reason whatsoever. To quote Handy, "READ A BOOK!" WookMuff 08:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

--65.87.242.28 (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• The mention of largrange points is a nod to fans because of the most notable moments of the gundam series that this term is use in. Since Gundam is both action and Scifi, many real world scientific aspects have become a part of the iconic fan phenomenon and thus it's mention serves to be as much as part of Gundam as the idea of space stations, vessels and real world concepts of space travel. Almost like in parts of Star Trek when they take common scientific theory and fact and use it as a backdrop for the show.--AKIRA70 (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Of course science can be fan service. Just look at Futurama. It is full of references to science, you see famous science books in the book shelves, and so on. It has (mostly) no real important aspect to the story; it is just there as ego masturbation for people recognizing the references - nothing wrong with that :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.217.20 (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Clean up

Since someone is insisting on an itemized list of clean up issues:

• the tone is that of a personal essay not an encyclopedia article
• severe lack of sources to support claims throughout
• major portion of the article consists of a list

-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This discussion is really from 2009? X.X, Closed result = Oppose Move - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Move?

• Fan service → Fanservice — Spelling correction. — 199.125.109.88 (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Correction needed for cut and paste move Fanservice and Fan service -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont have an opinion one way or the other, just the fact that the way the move was done was improper disconnecting of the contribution from the contributor through the edit history / a violation of the GFDL. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• A quick Google search shows that "Fan service" is the far more common spelling. TJ Spyke 15:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose move I almost always see it as two word, but rarely as one word. --Farix (Talk)

  It should also be noted that every source, except for the Wiktionary self-reference, uses the two word form. If articles are to reflect their sources, the two word form is the most appropriate article title. --Farix (Talk) 23:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Move oppose Can you even ref fanservice to be the correct term? I'm pretty sure it's fan service, to service the fans.DragonZero (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose until definitive sources can show "fanservice" is the more common spelling. I note that "fan service" (with quotes) has twice as many g-hits as "fanservice". OTOH, I also note that while ANN's lexicon uses fan service the Urban Dictionary uses fanservice. Not a clear-cut issue, but g-hits carries presumption of greater use here. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as "fan service" is two words, not one. There are no reliable sources I can find which have it as one word. I can correct the cut-and-paste move if needed. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - right now there is indiciation that dictionarial soruces and other reliable sources do recognize the one word "fanservice", however the numbers are not enough to justify a move, but just a notation in the article that it can be that way. However, as the usage of the one word version has potential as English now uses more morphemes and lexemes than ever before.じんない 00:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• It already was noted in the lead, as one of a few alternate forms. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is that as it stands today, this article is appropriatly titled, however the usage of the compund word "fanservice" is common enough that it possibly in a year or so it may be more relevant to move it, if more reliable sources use it rahter than the non compound "fan service" as currently is the case. It's a word/phrase in flux atm.じんない 21:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have left a message on the IP's page who made the formal move request to see if s/he actually supports a move or whether it was simply putting my request for a correction into the standard format of the move request page. There may be no support for a move. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

All I did was format the move request. I based it on this edit.[1] 199.125.109.88 (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's two words. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Newtype—Ask Jack: Unmentionables

I found this column from the Newtype USA website months (or years) ago while looking for New Cutie Honey stuff there. It mentions the 1973 Cutey Honey and a scene from Plane Crazy(!) as early examples, but I'm iffy on including the Honey thing since ADV published both the mag and the new Honey OVA (which makes them kind of unreliable for that). I guess anything's an improvement here, though. --an odd name 02:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please remove all references to anime

I've heard of the term "fan service" long before I'd ever heard of anime, so why is this article all about anime? Fan service is quite common in normal TV shows and movies and certainly did not originate in anime. (Why do so many wikipedia articles have to involve anime?) tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.84.96 (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a friend who used anime terminology for some non-anime culture. Shii (tock) 12:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference 8

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

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

Images, removal of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Droll/drool

The text used in The Otaku Encyclopedia is "drool", not droll. Please do not edit war over this.陣内_Jinnai 23:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for edit of protected page

The request is: removal, at least until the situation is clarified, of File:Wikipe tan wearing a bikini by Kasuga39.png, for the reasons described below.

---

I have a request into the Foundation to approve the use of this image. For details on why this is (or might be) necessary, see Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#What to do re Wikmedia-associated cheesecake pic at Fan service?. Pending approval I think the situation is unclear and we should certainly err on the side of caution in using materials that are reasonably claimed to be marks of a corporation in this manner.

Unless I'm missing something, the Foundation could approve (or at any rate not object to) the use of the image in the article for any of these reasons:

1. They don't think its derivative of any copyrighted Foundation material or that it might be taken as a mark of the Foundation.
2. They don't claim any control over use of Foundation marks by sub-entities.
3. They support fan service and wish the Foundation to be associated with it.

I'd be surprised if the Foundation took any of these stances, but you never know. In the meantime, I think it'd be more prudent to not include the image. Herostratus (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• I oppose this edit and I would like to note that this is far from a clear cut issue, and consensus for removal does not appear to exist here, or at WP:ANI or at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. Is there even a trademark registration for this? I haven't seen any evidence of one. Monty₈₄₅ 01:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed, Herostratus has been trying to bring this discussion in as many places as possible, I feel the stick should be dropped here and we as editors should move on with other things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh I missed a forum, the deletion request on the file over at commons [2] with almost unanimous keeps. Monty₈₄₅ 02:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests must either have consensus or be uncontroversial. This evidently is neither. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal (Fan service --> Ecchi)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result= Closed proposal, the two articles are diffrent here.

I figured I would throw this in here, if fan service is under ecchi's umbrella then the right thing to do here would be to merge the two together per the sources above right? Doing this should not effect the wikipe-tan image as it still shows fan service (Bra and bathing suit) but seeeing that this article is not that long is another reason a merge might be best. Please state Support or Oppose here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

....um.....no? You're not being serious are you? I'm not even going to dignify my response with a bold word. Read the page, fan service isn't even specially sexual -- so perhaps the best way to fix this whole debate is to find something else that's not sexual yet could be called fan service...though I imagine finding a free one would be tough. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the sources above are stating that fan service and ecchi are related I figured I would see where people stood on this with a merge proposal, just because something is proposed does not mean it will happen. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The concepts overlap, but they are distinct. While ecchi is often used for fan service, there are types of fan service that are not ecchi ([3]), and there are types of ecchi that are not fan service in the sense of an erotic filler. I think the concepts are best treated separately. --JN466 18:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jayen here. There is also ecchi content that is not fan service in the sense that it is comical such as the elephant gag in Inukami! since the character's actions are sexualized the appearance of him running around town is sometimes labeled as ecchi, alough there is no fan service element nessasary in these scenes.陣内_Jinnai 23:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Kogaru Diaries image

• Remove File:Kogaru1.jpg – Per the reasons I've expressed at Commons. Take a hard look at the Kogaru Diaries and its author. "Kogaru Diaries" is spelled out on the image, so it's going to appear as if Wikipedia is advertising it. The "Kogaru Diaries" treats children in a visually sexual manner. Including an image with "Kogaru Diaries" written on it is only going to hurt Wikipedia and its reputation in the end. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting such works. --JN466 09:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Remove Kogaru1 - After reading through the legal links posted in the commons deletion argument, I am forced to conclude that the images at "Kogaru Diaries" are in violation of US law. While this image itself is not obscene and has a serious educational purpose; the title on the side and the image description could reasonably be considered advertisement for said work. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note the ANI thread related to the repeated reinsertion of the Kogaru Diaries image. --JN466 17:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just fully protected the page until this can be sorted out and the opinions of a few folks can be garnered. Someone should structure this text a bit more into "yes/no" camps....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If everyone can clarify their position over the two images, it would be better to sort out things. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I separated the discussion into camps as suggested. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have also uploaded a cropped version of Kogaru1.jpg removing the advert. Discussion should revolve around that version, not the older one.陣内_Jinnai 19:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

With or without the "Kogaru Diaries" text, the image is still from that piece of work. I also would prefer if the discussion continues at WP:AN/I, since that's where the bulk of the current discussion concerning that image is taking place. Having a !vote in two separate locations will only create confusion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• No opinion The article isn't long enough for a second image to fit in without creating an unsightly large amount of whitespace. —Farix (t | c) 22:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral I've decided that I don't really care whether this image is kept given its association. My main objection before was that people were using the advert as a cause for deletion, which it should not have been; that is an argument for cropping, which I did. Now that that is done, I am fine with whatever the consensus decides.陣内_Jinnai 22:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• remove 1. the image is not a necessary or a even a good illustration of the topiuc. 2. Wikipedia is not a place to use to advertise images from external websites which it does with or without the name of the website.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – The AN/I thread has been archived. It can be found here. Although the discussion at AN/I initially concerned an edit war, it developed into a well-fledged discussion about File:Kogaru1.jpg and soon overtook its Talk:Fan_service counterpart in seize and diversity of opinions. The AN/I thread provides useful insight and hosted a wider sample size. The AN/I thread also included comments about the Wikipe-tan image, but that subject is as contested there as it is here. Consensus on File:Kogaru1.jpg, on the other hand, appears clearer. Further discussion and deliberation, of course, will occur on this talk page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Replace PNG image with SVG version

Replace File:Wikipe tan wearing a bikini by Kasuga39.png with File:Wikipe tan wearing a bikini by Kasuga39.svg

Malyszkz has graciously created a vector version of the original PNG image on Commons, eliminating the one quality issue with the original image, jaggies. Even though the use of the image in general is being discussed above, using an SVG version over an PNG version should not be controversial. —Farix (t | c) 13:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

File has been replaced as requested. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Remove Wikipe-tan image?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  "I also throw at your face Wikipedia is a collaborative work." Wow, that says it all. Thank you for your viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  You don't need to thanks me :) People are also leaving Wikipedia because editors don't give a fuck to this pillar of Wikipedia. That improving the encyclopedia according to their views can justify and is worth having (a lot of) people leaving wikipedia along the way. Unfortunately too few care of the "community health" nowadays. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  An upublished thought is something that means the entire article is OR. If you cannot grasp the simple concept that what you are trying to do violates WP:OI because you want to violate WP:CIRCULAR by having someone use psychic powers to before the image is created comment that an image origianlly uploaded to commons for use on Wikipedia then you are really screwed up. A "new" or "unpublished" idea is just that - I create an article and draw an image to support that without citing any sources that describe,in general, what it is. Requiring someone to say specifically "This image is X" directly violates WP:CIRCULAR and undermines WP:NFCC requirements that if a free alternative can exist, it should be replaced. If you cannot grasp that simple concept - that someone doesn't have to say a specific picture is an example of something, but just has RSes comment on the general themes of what make up an image - then this discussion is over because there is no reason to continue arguing.陣内_Jinnai 23:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  The question of whether it is original research depends on whether the image introduces a new concept that isn't mentioned and sourced in the article. The article does state that female characters in swimsuits are a common form of fan service. Since the image clearly illustrates that concept and nothing else, it itself is not original research. Now the real problem is whether the statement the image illustrates is supported by the references or can be supported by including additional references. —Farix (t | c) 23:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  Is it only me who notices that she is not wearing a bathing suit or a bikini? She is wearing a strip club bra top which is too small for her breasts and a wraparound mini skirt which does not quite reach around her hips. Nobody swims in this type of gear. Not a swimsuit. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

  It's just you and exaggerated thought. The top look normal, on her waist is towel wrap around lower piece. When was the last time you going to beach? Or watching anime with beach scene? Because these type of gears are common. L-Zwei (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

  The file name and description page clearly states that it is a swimsuit, specifically a bikini, and any general reader will identify it as such.Also, Kasuga's deviant art page clearly states that the image is fan service.[4] —Farix (t | c) 11:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

  Kasuga states on that page "It's mere fanservice, lol." His DeviantArt homepage is not a RS, and as far as fan service is concerned, there is a complete absence of evidence that this image is a notable example of it. We'd be serving our readers better with a fair-use real-life example that has attracted RS attention as an iconic example of fan service in the real world, outside Wikipedia. --JN466 21:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

  Facepalm I'm flabbergasted by how you can say that the original artist is not a reliable source for his own artwork. —Farix (t | c) 22:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

  Just think about it for a moment. The point is that he is not notable as a commentator on fan service. He would be a reliable source in an article on his own image, if that were notable enough to merit an article, but what he says about this image on his DeviantArt page is of no consequence to the article fan service. This article should be based on reliable sources discussing fan service. --JN466 22:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Notability does not limit article content. So long as the image clearly illustrates a concept mentioned in the article and does so without introducing any unpublished concepts or ideas, then it is perfectly valid illustration. —Farix (t | c) 23:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

  The idea that Wikipe-tan in a bikini is an illustration of fan service (which the article defines as the insertion of exciting image sequences in anime or manga) is an unpublished idea. --JN466 23:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

  The image doesn't introduced an unpublished idea (the image illustrates that a character in a swimsuit as a form of fan service) and the image's creator does state that the image is fan service on the DeviantArt page I linked to earlier. —Farix (t | c) 00:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

  Wikipe-tan in a swimsuit is no more an example of fan service in anime and manga than Donald Duck in a swimsuit, because she is not a published manga or anime character. --JN466 00:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

  You do know that fan service applies to more than just anime and manga? —Farix (t | c) 00:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep for now per project consensus - "Wikipe tan wearing a bikini by Kasuga39.png" is serving a valid purpose and there has been recent talk of getting better images here. The argument about the trademark infringement makes no sense, Wikipedia cannot infringe upon itself. The argument that it is "objectively destructive to the project" has only been supported by subjective arguments. You would need objective data to make such a case, not just speculation. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• Remove per Binksternet. It would be useful to feature an image that is actually notable in the world out there, rather than notable in Wikipedia. --JN466 00:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The rationale behind the use of the Wikipe image is that it is a free image; whereas images that are "notable in the world out there" would likely come from copyrighted sources and require a fair use justification. Wikipedia is trying to move away from relying on non-free images. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    • How good an example of fan service is the Wikipe-tan image? Fan service, as described in our text, is the insertion of enticing or titillating image sequences in the storyline of a manga comic or anime show. The bikini-clad Wikipe-tan is neither of those. Free images are good, but they should illustrate what the article is about. --JN466 19:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Notability has nothing to do with page content, but even if it did, Wikipe-tan has been protrayed enough to be at least loosely associated with the Wikimedia Project. That she is a fan creation says a lot about her exposure level.陣内_Jinnai 22:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
        • What has that image got to do with fan service in the world our readers inhabit? Nothing. --JN466 23:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
          • It is a depicition of what fan service looks like. That's enough.陣内_Jinnai 23:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
            • According to which reliable sources is it a depiction of fan servce? RxS (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
              • The creator. Unless you're claiming the creator doesn't know what he created.陣内_Jinnai 23:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Is he a reliable source? reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.) [5] RxS (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • RS doesn't apply to WP:OI created for use with Wikipedia articles to conform with WP:NFCC otherwise you'd be saying "violate NFCC or CIRCULAR" because no secondary source can comment on an image that has never existed for upload to Wikipedia as a free alternative to comply with mandated policy.陣内_Jinnai 23:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    • WP:OI:Images can be used so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. Is there a published link between this image and fan service? If not, it can't be used. If there are no suitable images that clear NFCC, then the article will have to do without. No one is forcing an image into the article. RxS (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    • So if I create an image of a doubledecker bus wearing a goth cape, upload it to DeviantArt, and say on my DA user page "It is fan service, LOL", it thereby becomes a suitable illustration for this article? No. --JN466 23:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Does your example illustrate the text in the article? No. Does this one? Yes, even to the point that it mentions swimsuits and girls. Stop using blatanly sarcastic comparisons to try to illustrate your point. You're just showing how little you understand.陣内_Jinnai 00:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
        • If you verify that a "doubledecker bus wearing a goth cape" or even "vehicles wearing goth cape" is a form of fan service, yes. —Farix (t | c) 00:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Then verify, in a reliable source, that Wikipe-tan in a swimsuit is a form of fan service. --JN466 00:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
            • The point of WP:OI is that only the concepts need to be verified through a reliable source, not that a specific image is an illustration of a specific concept. If that was the case, then we couldn't use any original image. —Farix (t | c) 00:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Let me use Sunrise as an example. There is not a reliable source that specifically states that those images are an illustration of a sunrise nor were the images published in any other source prior to their upload to Commons. We assume good faith that the images are what the uploaders and photographers say they are. They are no different than File:Wikipe tan wearing a bikini by Kasuga39.png. By your reasoning, these images are pure original research and should be removed from the article. —Farix (t | c) 00:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
              • If someone challenges the usage it'd be removed if after a discussion it's determined by consensus that removal is appropriate. Policy doesn't support the notion that a single editor can force a photo into an article only on his or her word. AGF doesn't enter into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RxS (talk • contribs) 03:10, 9 April 2011
                • I see that you've completely avoided explaining why one OI is original research while other OIs are not original research. Either you apply the same standard to all OI or your standard is based on the convenience of removing one image you don't like. —Farix (t | c) 11:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I see no policy related issues with this picture, it is of free content and serves this article good. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - the image has been here longstanding. That its Wikipe-tan doesn't matter. The image was clearly created as a a depicition of fanserive, its freely reusable, it clearly adds to the article and most of all, its neutral in that the only thing it promotes is Wikipedia. This isn't even remotely like the other image being discussed.陣内_Jinnai 22:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Remove - that image is an obvious WP:COATRACK violation and is totally irrelevant to the subject matter of this article. Arguments to the contrary seem to boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, when they are not just "pointy" efforts to goad the prudes. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I will point out the other side has gone on record as saying their main point for removal is WP:IDONTLIKEIT.陣内_Jinnai 23:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

  I don't understand your reasoning that the image is a WP:COATRACK. How does the image create hooks for bias content to be inserted into the article? And what particular bias is the image promoting? —Farix (t | c) 00:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep illustration of fanservice. We generally illustrate the subject of our articles, and this should be no different.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I think the image uniquely illustrates the concept by using a character familiar to the Wikipedia community to demonstrate what fan service is. Further it avoids the need to use a fair use image. To those who support deleting, as the other image has already been removed, is there a substitute image we should replace it with, or will the article be left without an image at all? Monty₈₄₅ 23:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. If it is a choice between Wikipe-tan and no image, then we should keep the image. However, it really is a poor way of illustrating the concept. Wikipe-tan is not well-known, and creating a specific illustration of Wikipe-tan in a fan service style isn't the same as the way authors incorporate fan service elements into the normal flow of a comic or anime. If we weren't restricted by copyright, then there could be much better examples of the concept (such as depictions that have been discussed as fan service by third parties). So, I think Wikipe-tan's use here is very weak, and should probably be replaced, even if that means invoking fair use. Though free, Wikipe-tan doesn't represent the topic very well. Dragons flight (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

  History has shown that people will use any excuse to try to remove images from articles of this nature. The move to use public domain or CC licensed images was made because fair use images proved to be impossible to defend. Shiroi Hane (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoever reformatted this discussion did a half-ass job of it. The discussion is not a vote, but the format encourages voting. —Farix (t | c) 00:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it was me. Casliber suggested it, and I complied. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

While separating the comments between the two images would made things less confussing, it is a serious breach of protocol to separate comments between those supporting keeping an image from those supporting removal. This format does not facilitate a discussion at all. —Farix (t | c) 00:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I could change it back. I could place the comments back into chronological order and keep a separate section for each image. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed it back. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Remove - Time for the pervy Wikipe-tan stuff to be kicked to the curb. Tarc (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

To consider a bathing suit to be pervy is disturbing. What, pray tell, should women go swimming in?--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Tarc has a history of claiming all images of Wikipe-tan as "pervy". —Farix (t | c) 11:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Currently this is the most suitable free image available at Commons to illustrate the article. If you can demonstrate that this image is unsuitable then no image at Commons is suitable. On a such basis we will be allowed to use non free to illustrate the article and there are "certainly" relevant non free images that even can fend off accusation of Original Research. People who want to have Wikipe-tan removed would certainly be even more obfuscated over those non free yet relevant images. --KrebMarkt (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Eroticised depictions (ecchi) are a common type of fan service.

• • I disagree that it is the most suitable image in Commons. What's wrong with the one shown on the right? It's won several accolades in Commons. --JN466 12:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The image illustrate the concept of ecchi, which is a different from the concept of fan service. —Farix (t | c) 13:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
      • See sources below. Ecchi is commonly used as fan service, per multiple reliable sources. --JN466 13:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Weird

I am not really an expert of this subject, but me and my friend discussed this and we concluded that its one of the flaws of wikipedia trying to do discuss something thats indeterminable. In the end its just a damn picture. Also the whole discussion seems to be heavily clouded by subjectivity (beeing fan or not, or beeing from culture where sexuality is unproportioned with other areas, like violence (US)). Delete this if its bad contribution. Also bad english. --193.40.25.251 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to use alternative image

Eroticised depictions (ecchi) are a common type of fan service.

The image shown on the right is free. It's artistically superior, has won several accolades in Commons, and avoids bringing the Wikipedia mascot into an article on manga/anime, a field where Wikipe-tan has no significance outside Wikipedia. I propose that we replace the Wikipe-tan image with it. --JN466 13:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You're equating fan service with ecchi, which is original research. While the two sometimes have a correlation with each other, they are not the same concepts, and thus s should not use the same image as an illustration. It also shoots more holes in your previous argument that using an original image, like File:Wikipe tan wearing a bikini by Kasuga39.png, is original research. —Farix (t | c) 13:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The cited sources describe eroticised depictions of characters (and ecchi specifically) as a type of fan service. The article text does too. --JN466 13:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I don't really mind the adult depictions of Wikipe-tan. As long as the upskirt pic of the child is gone, then I think the article looks fine as is. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 14:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's just that Wikipe-tan is a really daft example of fan service. Readers not knowing her will think fan service involves anime characters having puzzle pieces stuck in their hair; it violates the WP:Principle of least astonishment, as well as WP:OR. --JN466 15:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, that's a pretty odd argument. I would suspect that most people will assume from the image that fan service involves anime/manga characters wearing swimsuits, which is reasonably accurate. Somehow I think they will overlook the puzzle pieces. :) - Bilby (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Anime Girl tossing pink pieces of paper is a much better choice because the girl looks like she could be older and the setting is not about a girl in school. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think this is consistent with my understanding of what fan service is. I think for it to be fan service it must be a character that is ostensibly there for some other purpose. For instance, when the otherwise normally dressed character participates in a bathing suit scene, I would call that fan service; but when all there is to a character is their erotic appearance, and there isn't any non-erotic content to counterbalance, it is no longer fan service but instead ecchi or hentia. I think this image falls into the latter category, while the current one is more properly an example of fan service. Monty₈₄₅ 17:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • We have four reliable sources saying ecchi is used for fan service, and there are more such sources to be had. If you will, you can imagine the character in this image being dressed differently for the remainder of the strip, and putting this outfit on for this scene, as fan service. That is the sort of thing that happens in anime or manga, and it works as well for this image as imagining the same works for Wikipe-tan in her bikini—with the difference that this image shows a generic character of the type encountered in manga or anime, while Wikipe-tan is a specific, identifiable character, characterised by the Wikipedia puzzle pieces in her hair, which is not in this or any similar form used in any real-world manga or anime. Wikipe-tan is a creation of Wikipedians, and using her here is self-referential. We are writing our articles for a readership the vast majority of whom are not familiar with Wikipedia internals; we are not writing for the edification of fellow Wikipedians. Wikipe-tan means nothing to the vast majority of readers coming to us. --JN466 18:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral I don't think this one fill the bill as this one belongs more to the ecchi side rather than the fan service side. No question that ecchi & fan service overlap but this image doesn't fall in the overlapping area. We are looking for a more definitive solution not for some jury rig enabling people to get rid of Wikipe-tan. I don't think people complaining about wikipe-tan will be still watching this page once wikipe-tan image will be removed and thus won't be here for customers support period afterward. Had it been me, i would use a non free image with Fair Use Rational and close once for all this time sink discussion. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Suggestions – Make the image more fanservice-ish by:
  • Either darken the background or add rays of sunlight.
  • Make the image upright instead of using that angle.
  • Make the image higher and reduce the width.
  • The pose isn't really fan-service-like.
  • The wide-open smile doesn't shout "fan service" to me. Use a closed-mouth, subtle smile or smirk.
  • Add lens flare for fun.
• --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I asked User:Niabot to create a new image for fan service and he said that he would give it a try, While the image presented here is great I do not think it needs to be used in multiple articles. As for the wikipe-tan image just because it is not used in this article does not mean it gets removed from wikipedia, I have to agree though it is not the best fan service style image but that does not mean it can not be used elsewhere (As it stands It already is). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The more I am looking at this the more I see the two are not one in the same, I did ask Niabot to create an alternative picture however, that can either possibly be added as a second image to replace the contested File:Kogaru1.jpg image or for other future use for this article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose ecchi =/= fan service per sey. An image of the same character in a more compromising visage would probably be fine since it would be clear its fan service. I'm not seeing it here though.陣内_Jinnai 23:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I agreed with removing File:Kogaru1.jpg, in part because an overly sexualised child is inappropriate. So I'm not sure why the aim here is to replace an illustration of an older character that does seem to represent fan service but isn't overtly sexual, with what looks like a younger character that very clearly is. Post-pubescent, so it is a step up from Kogaru1.jpg, but I'd rather go with the more sedate image. Especially given that it doesn't necessarily represent fan service per se. - Bilby (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• But, since there is an image from an actual published source (which is this), why don't you use this, under the fair use agreement, instead of using questionable amateur pictures? Billy Bread (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

  The fair use tag says the fair use rationale applies "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question", would that apply to this situation where we are just using the image as an example, but are not actually covering the image in question? Also, if a reasonably good free alternative is available, can we still claim fair use? Monty₈₄₅ 00:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

  If an official image from a published source is used, it will all be more credible. After all, Kodomo no Jikan has been published and approved as being in total legality. Sometimes, amateur work can be misunderstood easily, as with the Kogaru Diaries images which look really borderline. Billy Bread (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

  To use an image under fair use, we would need to be explicitly discussing that image in particular, rather than using it to illustrate a broader concept. WP uses a very restrictive version of fair use, mostly to keep things in line with the mission to produce free use content, which runs into problems when non-free use material is added. - Bilby (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

  As long as there is a free alternative, we couldn't even use it to begin with. There is, the wikipe-tan one (probably others, but no one has come here with one). Even if there weren't, creating one wouldn't violate OI and therefore a replacement could be made because it wouldn't be intrdoucing a new or unpublished idea. Ideas =/= characters.陣内_Jinnai 16:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

  I would not say that are my images or that from Kasuga are prefect to illustrate this topic. But this image from Kodomo no Jikan is even less suitable. It doesn't show any typical concept of fan service. --Niabot (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)