Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan SVG 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipe-tan

[edit]
Original - Wikipe-tan, a moé anthropomorphization of Wikipedia.
Reason
Wikipe-tan (ウィキペたん, Uikipetan) is one of the personifications of Wikipedia. The "-tan" in "Wikipe-tan" is a hypocoristic suffix, in the form of a Japanese title. Like the OS-tans, she is a product of moe anthropomorphism.


Meets all requirements and has fixed previous anti-aliasing concerns that caused the delisting. Wikipe-tan has been featured in printed media in at least four five separate occasions:


Consensus was strong at both Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan and even Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Wikipe-tan full length that the image meet the requirements of being encyclopedic content. She was delisted due to anti-aliasing issues that have now been fixed with an SVG version.

Close-up
PNG
PNG		 SVG
SVG

I am aware of the image's unsuccessful nomination at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan SVG. I am relisting because I feel that previous discussion had several flaws, such as: misconceptions about the self reference guidelines [1], one editor who apparently didn't know SVG is scalable [2], previous consensus has established that Wikipe-tan is encyclopedic was not considered, the misconception that cartoon drawings are too simplistic to be FPs, as well as the misconception that one must like anime or this particular anthropomorphization of Wikipedia [3].

Also, since I was not aware of the last nomination I didn't get the chance to formally thank User:Editor at Large for her hard work at making the vector version. She has done what MER-C said was "irreparable".

Articles this image appears in
Moe anthropomorphism
Creator
Original by User:Kasuga, SVG vectoring by User:Editor at Large
  • I understand and respect your opinion, but I've got to ask, how many other featured pictures have been featured in a major printed publication? Less than 10% maybe? How about five major printed publications? She is regularly sought out as a high quality and free example, used by professionals around the world. -- Ned Scott 21:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter if it was in a printed publication, as non-featured level pictures can be found in media around the world. I understand it was used simply because it was free media. SpencerT♦C 22:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does matter, because we're not talking about just some random publications. The image was being featured on the front pages of newspapers (to draw readers in. huh, I think that's one of the FPC criteria..), and as main examples of concepts like a maid cafe. The fact is that she's a pleasant, fun, cute drawing that draws readers in. We're not talking about random clip art on the company newspaper here, we're talking about significant uses. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still loses enc., because even though it appears there to illustrate Maid cafe in the magazine, the article here, on wikipedia, doesn't have the image in it (and probably shouldn't). Saying that this is a "pleasant, fun, cute drawing that draws readers in," is a personal opinion, and could be said about many non-featured images. SpencerT♦C 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I brought up the printed examples it wasn't to compare the topic of those articles, but rather that they felt Wikipe-tan was of sufficient quality to not only print in the article, but be used to draw readers in. The encyclopedic value is in moe anthropomorphism and fan service, the two mainspace articles currently using this same image (though there are other main space articles using other Wikipe-tan images). It seems to me that you have more of an issue with those articles than you do this image if you don't see the encyclopedic value. -- Ned Scott 05:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Support I was looking at the wrong images...this is better than others we have of this type. Examples: 1, and 2. SpencerT♦C 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support but I know MER-C is going to find some reason to shoot it down again. --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 14:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • MER-C doesn't "shoot"anything down. We users vote and he just closes the nominations. Muhammad(talk) 15:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As frustrated as I was with MER-C on the delisting a while back, I don't think he has anything personal against the image itself. In the last nom he simply closed it according to the discussion, and I can't fault him for that. In the de-list nom he cited the anti-aliasing issue, which was technical in nature. He's just doing his job, like any other image. -- Ned Scott 21:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like Capital photographer elaborated, I hope you don't mind if I ask you if you can elaborate more on why you strongly support the picture. SpencerT♦C 20:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not so much about wanting to strongly support the image as much as it is being frustrated at the apparent bias towards anime and/or cartoons from this specific group of editors. Somehow something that's 2d, which probably took more work and skill than your average photograph, is of less value because we associate cartoons with immaturity. And if the editors here don't believe that it took skill to make Wikipe-tan, they're more than welcome to attempt to make something that has anywhere near the level of popularity that these images have. It's not as easy as one thinks. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as my previous vote. Muhammad(talk) 15:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to be a dick, but your previous rationale was "Does not have any encyclopedic value.", which is a bit absurd. You might not like it, but you've got to be crazy if you think that one of our only free examples of anime has no value. She's exactly the kind of example we needed, and perfectly illustrates not only Moe anthropomorphism, but Fan service (believe it or not, the term applies to non-sexual themes as well), and a ton of other concepts (check the usage stats on a large number of images on commons:Category:Wikipe-tan). -- Ned Scott 06:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per the same arguments as last time. Is there is a minimum time limit a picture must go through before it can be nominated again? Clegs (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I normally wouldn't re-nominate so fast, but there were several things I noticed that were not mentioned in the previous nomination. The most important of those was the use of the image in major, printed publications. -- Ned Scott 21:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support User:Editor at Large vectorized the original image very well. I don't know if the original PNG image itself is worthy of FA. But I give support to her work. I think it's worth of FA. --Kasuga (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Spencer and Clegs. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose My problem with it is the self-reference. I would support such an illustration without the self-reference. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-26 19:30Z
    • The image doesn't violate WP:SELF, and doesn't seem to be negatively effecting articles or reader experience. She does reference Wikipedia, but that doesn't seem to be an issue. -- Ned Scott 21:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a self-reference, plain and simple. Whether or not anyone else has a problem with it is not of importance to me. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-27 13:07Z
        • It's not a problem, period. Why would referencing Wikipedia in this situation be a bad thing? Does it violate any guidelines or policies? Does it negatively effect the article? No. Please, don't get me wrong, I have no bone to pick with you, but you've yet to say why this is bad. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. After reading the article and examining the other images I don't think this is a good example of Moe anthropomorphism. It doesn't add much to the article. Technical quality aside, it's just not a great image.Dwayne Reed (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The svg refutes the old quality issues; the nom refutes self-reference and cartoons. Dwayne Reed's objection about not being representative of Moe is harder to qualify, but I respectfully disagree; I think it's fine..--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close It's proposed to be deleted on Commons. --205.155.149.137 (talk)
...tagged by you on the reasons that it's "pedophilic." SpencerT♦C 20:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And deletion was declined. SpencerT♦C 21:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IP has also vandalized WT:TAN and a user talk page. -- Ned Scott 21:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks to Editor at Large for redrawing as svg. In its favor, the drawing has garnered a fair amount of attention in the press, and seems to do a good job illustrating the concept. I guess I don't have any problems with it as being OR or SELF. There's nothing really wrong now, but there's nothing so exceptional or amazing about it either. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose All other issues notwithstanding, it's just not that good that it should be featured - I mean I don't find it impressive as a piece of graphic design. (On a side note, and nothing to do with the voting process - cutesy childish characters on the front page of WP would turn me off reading further, and the point of FP is to attract readership. Just because a small sub section of Wikipedians feel this image is a good representation of WP, does not make it so, even if they have managed to promote it in a few publications.) Mfield (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And yet she's been on our front page at least three times already, and hundreds of readers have been quite pleased with her. Believe it or not, cutesy can be encyclopedic. Heck, it's a billion dollar industry that has had deep impact on our culture and society. Out of all the shows, movies, magazines, products and merchandize, Wikipe-tan still remains one of but a tiny few freely licensed pictures that we can use for articles on the core concepts. The Wikipedia community at large, our readers, and other 3rd party publications don't see this as a problem, so why should such an argument have merit here? -- Ned Scott 05:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I might have misunderstood you a bit here. You seem to believe that editors were responsible for getting the image used in other publications, but this is not so. In fact, at least three different times the newspapers/magazines had to be contacted because they didn't understand the GFDL/CC license for the image, and didn't give proper attribution. It also doesn't matter if you feel she represents Wikipedia or not. This FPC isn't some kind of mascot vote. We're talking about her as a concept of anthropomorphism and anime. The fact that she is an anthropomorphization of Wikipedia is what caught our eye, but it is not why so many users (far form a "small sub section") have come to adore this character. -- Ned Scott 06:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:ENC. It's lovely, but ..... M♠ssing Ace 23:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Mfield --Fir0002 00:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose and blech There's not even a main-space article about her, the article links to a Wikipedia space that gives internally or unsourced information about the Wikipedia actions regarding this. It's not even an original or compelling moe anthropomorphism, much less encyclopedic in even Wikipedia article space. If this were voted on in 2008, rather than 2006, it probably wouldn't be the Wikipedia moe anthropomorphism. Too much OR and Wikipedia sources. --Blechnic (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The vast majority of our featured articles don't have an article for the image. Some of our past featured images are of a "character", and they to do not have an article. Having a "Wikipe-tan" article is not a requirement to be a featured picture. Wikipe-tan wasn't voted on to be a mascot or to "represent" Wikipedia at all. Her usage spread on its own throughout the community. There's not a single tiny bit of original research here, and Wikipedia is not being used as a source. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's my question. How is this not a main-space article? TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 01:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article you should be pointing to is this one, and Wikipe-tan is not an article, it's a main space red link. The article you are pointing to is not on Wikipe-tan, it's no Moe anthropomorphism, what you've linked to. --Blechnic (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You seem to be confused about something.. the image is called Wikipe-tan, but we are considering the image as an example in the Moe anthropomorphism article, not as a Wikipe-tan topic. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No confusion, I cannot find any sources in that article that state that it is anything whatsoever outside of Wikipedia, or that it even belongs in that article. I think it should be removed from the Moe anthropomorphism article, not featured on the main page. Should it ever be notable outside of Wikipedia, and actually merit an article with references, notify me, and I will consider changing my vote. --Blechnic (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Don't see any solid problem with image. It meet requirements and even fix only problem that delist PNG version. L-Zwei (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per above supports. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you (nominator) think the image is good and is valuable and encyclopedic, do you think you could hold this for a while and nominate it as a Valuable Image once Wikipedia launches this, since this image does not seem to be FP material? Muhammad(talk) 08:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image is FP material, it's just the tight-nit, close minded, elitist chumps here can't seem to accept anything that's outside of their own personal taste. Like I pointed out before, probably less than 10% of FPs will ever get seen in major printed publications, much less five. We've got nothing to prove here, and I'm a fool for having faith that the FP reviewers could be open minded enough to see what's already been well established.
    • Getting back to your question, sure, sounds like a great new proposal. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose How many times are things like this going to be put up for FPC? It's a joke, in my opinion. I've voted against it before and I'll continue to do so. Capital photographer was absolutely correct. ¢rassic! (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose - Where is the wow ? Look at other images that appear on the front page and they all look wonderful - this is just a well made, twee cartoon. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC) striking oppose per Diliff's reasoning - cannot support though - Peripitus (Talk) 02:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm the png version has appeared on the main page.Genisock2 (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Almost before my time that one. Looking through the original FP there were a supports "because she's cute", and opposes on the basis simply of "self-referential". Not a great debate from my reading. For me the image misses criteria 3...it does not make me want to know more - Peripitus (Talk) 12:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The character is 祖 so see wikt:祖). SpencerT♦C 23:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • support Good SVG and an example of a form of modern art where there is little free stuff.Genisock2 (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mfield. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. At this stage of the nom, its symbolic only it seems, but I don't really understand many of the reasons for opposition. It does appropriately illustrate a number of articles and is therefore encyclopaedic, regardless of how unimportant those articles seem to be to us. It is, to the best of my knowledge, high quality representation of that style of illustration. Certainly it is more polished than Janke's animated horse FP. I'm not putting down Janke's animation at all though, I'm just putting this image in perspective of other FP illustrations. To be honest, this argument covers about 80% of the opposers here and if I ruled the world, the closer would be a bit more demanding that reasons for opposes be rational, logical and, through thorough discussion in the nomination, proven to be logically correct, rather than simply take them as one person's opinion and leave it at that... As they say, opinions are like a$&holes - everyone has one. That doesn't make many of them right, and it is a shame when an uninformed majority pushes consensus in a direction that is patently wrong. I know the closer is an overworked and underappreciated job though, so don't take it personally at all. :-) Hmm, that turned into a bit of a rant. Sorry about that. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was staying away from this discussion, but Diliff has won me over. I think one of the main reasons people are opposing is its frequent appearance on WP:FPC, which is not really fair. NauticaShades 23:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Concur with Diliff and Nautica. Cartoons can be FP, too, and this is a pretty good (and free license) example of anime (I already supported it as a PNG). What's wrong with having this on the front page - for one more day?? --Janke | Talk 04:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe she would be on the main page as the featured picture or a second time, even though this is a new image file. -- Ned Scott 02:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All of the issues that caused the original delisting has been addressed. Meets all FP criteria. G.A.S 07:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The reason for delisting has been addressed, which ought to be reason enough to relist. Opposition based on self-reference grounds seem to involve confusing levels of categories. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For full disclosure, a note of this nomination was left on Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan. Although I wanted to avoid leaving a notice there, to avoid vote stacking accusations, I would like to ask that we keep an open mind about editors who came here from that notice, and judge their positions on the merits of their comments. -- Ned Scott 02:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry about not disclosing that yesterday. The wikiproject news feed was updated per the very first nomination's example at the same time. I do however believe that this is not a vote, as the listing criteria does not include guidelines in this regard (unlike COMMONS:C:FPC): all comments should be judged on their merits. G.A.S 06:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Diliff's excellent arguments. All of the Featured picture requirements have been met, as have all the valid concerns raised at the delisting of the PNG version. There is no valid reason to not make this a Featured picture. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Ned Scott and Diliff. Fox816 (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, great example of quality original artwork. Shii (tock) 18:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on FP criteria #3. I know this is entirely subjective, but I guess my elitist chump brain just can't see it. --160.79.165.106 (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not have time to check all the supporters but there are many users who I have never seen before at FPC, who are part of the anime project, voting in support. Meat Puppets? Muhammad(talk) 05:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that Wikipedia is not a democracy, this should not be an issue. There was only remaining issue at the end of the original delist, in which many persons voted, both oppose and support, who did not normally participate here. The closing statement of the closing admin was "No, I'm competent enough to assess that the aliasing is a very serious and irreparable issue. None of the keep opinions addressed this, and this is the reason why FPC is not a vote. Delisted . MER-C 01:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)". This has been now been addressed; and all comments should be judged on their merits. G.A.S 06:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (to Muhammad) G.A.S. and myself have already noted this above. If the closer feels these comments hold no value, and is truly concerned about possible vote stacking, then they can just disregard all supports made after 05:39 (UTC), 1 July 2008 [6]. I would find that less insulting than injecting with little comments like "omg, this guy received an anime project barnstar". -- Ned Scott 06:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, for example in the next anime FPC or something else, it probably shouldn't be added to the Wikiproject page until the nomination is over, saying that it was either successful or unsuccessful. Just my 2 cents. SpencerT♦C 13:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever the case, I don't think it is right to remove another user's comments from a discussion. It disrupts the flow and leaves others confused. That is why we have a strike out feature. Muhammad(talk) 19:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Dubious encyclopedic value, not an outstanding illustration Thisglad (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm uncomfortable with this concept of moe anthropomorphism. The article is not particularly thoroughly verified/verifiable, and I'd prefer a real example over one specifically made for Wikipedia. Lastly, I'm with the person who pointed out that there are six lines missing in the SVG that are present in the PNG version. Shouldn't we be retaining the drawing style accurately? Otherwise, why bother making an SVG copy of the PNG at all? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 04:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Wikipe-tan_SVG_2&oldid=1148999135"