Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan/Archive 4

src: cdn.technologyreview.com

Video Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan/Archive 4

Wikipe-tan internet series

I think the Wikimedia Foundation should create 30-minute animation clips every week, almost like a TV show, and make it feasible for veiwing and downloading from commics wikimedia. It must display Wikipe-tan with power to master the syntax, which he uses against his enemy, the wiki troll. He will look for information in the world for inclusion in articles and given barnstars by administrators to thwart the troublemakers and spammers.-- Ipatrol (talk) 00:23, October 2, 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Tell us after you create it. Ã, Â · Ã, Â · ??? ^{? Ã, Â · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

& lt; sarcasm & gt;

Ha, Ha, Ha, very funny. & lt;/sarcasm & gt;

I do not have time in that day for that.-- Ipatrol (talk) 00:23, October 2, 2008 (UTC)

I do not think most people here either. (^_^) Ã, Â · Ã, Â · Ã, Â · ??? ^{? Ã, Â · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Easier said than done. Honestly, if you want to see it, I think it will be the character on the OS-tan series. OS-tans have been around longer, may have larger fan bases, have more characters, more art fans, and already have animations created from them. There is a personification of antivirus software like the operating system, so I do not understand why the encyclopedia does not have it. In this case he needs a rival like Encarta-tan or something. All wikis should get -tans and possibly all browsers as well. Chrome-tan is probably a cyborg. Tyciol (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan/Archive 4

Need a German article

Despite mentioning German newspapers using Wikipe-tan, we need a German article about this mascot. I'm sure the Germans will love it. Other Joe9320-1000000 articles will be edited, One dream. (talk) 09:16, October 6, 2008 (UTC)

There was some discussion about the adoption of this mascot at the German village pump (in early 2007, I think), but the public did not like it at all. --Kam Solusar (talk) 13:29, October 26, 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Why?

That does not make sense. "??" read as "Wi" instead of "Ui". Moocowsrule (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC) moocowsrule

This is a common transcription method. For example, the name Watson (from Sherlock Holmes) is also transcribed as "Uatson". ~~ Nicholas A. Chambers 19:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC) - Meets unsigned comments added by Nicholas. a.chambers (talk o contribs)

src: 2017.igem.org

Questions about image inclusion and notability

Perhaps now is the time that there are guidelines on what images will be included in the gallery section of this article quoting Wikipedia rules on content notation and inclusion.

The biggest source of my opposition is the gallery "by others" and "derivatives" and how it seems that any Wikipe-tan version can upload and display their images. Before more serious editors begin to understand this article and start wasting some of these images, can we all agree on the criteria that make the image worthy of being part of this article? - Kevin586 (talk) 20:47, December 21, 2008 (UTC)

You realize that it only applies to the main room and not to the project space, does it? Ã, Â · Ã, Â · ??? ^{? Ã, Â · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:12, December 22, 2008 (UTC)

Really? It's a shame, but I'm still concerned about the lack of criteria for an image: should the editor really allow anyone with a registered account to post their Wikipe-tan adaptation on this project page? - Kevin586 (talk) 21:59, December 22, 2008 (UTC)

There are some deleted images, but very rare unless they seriously violate some Foundation policies. Ã, Â · Ã, Â · ??? ^{? Ã, Â · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:48, December 23, 2008 (UTC)

Image: Conservape-tan.png removed from this page, but not from Wikipedia. The only picture of Wikipe-tan that I know is completely removed is LoliWikipetan.jpg, by Jimbo himself. I do not understand why anyone deleted the image from this page, unless it becomes too big. Actually, I can not get enough of him, so do not delete anything ;-) Face 22:36, December 23, 2008 (UTC)

I fixed your link there (it shows all deletions) to the 2 versions he removed from the file. I am wondering what these images look like and if their removal is justified. Just with the title 'loli' I do not think 'pedophile sexis' is the right label, but it may base it on something specific in the image. However, sexuality (subjective as such) may be accurate, pedophiles will not. It is something people can do, not a transformative process of a fictional character. That raises the question: can the image be not sexually spidilized? What does it look like? I'm a bit confused, because for me, Wikipe-tan seems like a loli. More loli and she will be a toddler, so is the case? Tyciol (talk) 20:44, March 14, 2009 (UTC)

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

Did someone delete it? I do not see a problem with it. If there is a personification of commons and quotes, why not Conservapedia? Is this because it is not affiliated with Wikipedia like the other two? Even so, if they are not going to host Conservapedia, and since Conservapedia is clearly inspired by Wikipedia (why not show this inspired character)? I really want to return this if the deletion is not explained well enough. Tyciol (talk) 20:44, March 14, 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who returned the Conservapetan image. Nothing bothered me in three months, but if someone objected then I would love to hear why they do not like it. Personally, I think the main line of objection is not so much that "it does not belong to us and it offends the conservative so we better not use it" but that's just not a very good picture, because whoever makes it just turns the mouth and draws some lines. But that does not underestimate the first point; I just do not think conservatives are generally quite offended to file an objection. Soap ^Talk / _Contribution 21:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I just noticed it there, I thought because I was just checking the first gallery. You may want to check here 2 pic on the right side, this needs better description. Like a serious 'tree'? That's not even funny! Tyciol (talk) 01:57, March 15, 2009 (UTC)

Considering all this, then we may not include the Uncyclopedia Uncyclo-tan mirror mascot image, eh? BlairXCirucci (talk) 07:25, June 25, 2009 (UTC)

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

src: upload.wikimedia.org

The back of the camisole

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

src: 2017.igem.org

Redirect deletions

In checking Wikipe-tan I see constant effort over the years to redirect it to this page has been removed. What happen? I do not understand that. Often, pages related to Wikipedia pages will have a note at the top that says "see Wikipedia: x" but this term, exclusive to Wikipe-tan does not redirect? User: Tyciol 20:44, March 14, 2009

Because Wikipe-tan is not well-known for articles, so there can be no single article in the article space. The search engine will catch anyone who is trying to find this page quite easily. ? Melodia Chaconne? (talk) 21:01, March 14, 2009 (UTC)

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

As I'm sure you noticed, the page has been marinated, so you can not recover the redirect. There is a general consensus that cross-namespace redirects should be avoided, which I disagree with myself, but that's not a horrible danger as far as I can see, because even if someone tries to see Wikipe-tan it's unlikely they'll give up and assume no there is such a page. Soap ^Talk / _Contribution 21:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I did not realize it until you mentioned it but yes, there are no buttons made... so much for my insolent plan to create it, lol. I see that Wikipetan is equally salty even though I do not see the deletion logs there... an explanation given link to Wikipedia: Wikipedia-protected/protected titles that do not provide any explanation specifically for the article, or even to direct the creation. Tyciol (talk) 21:36, March 14, 2009 (UTC)

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

No, no. You may have changed it in your preferences, but by default the main search box only returns articles. The result will not be registered unless it takes a further step of explicitly notifying it to search for Wikipedia space. Dragon Flight (talk) 22:29, March 14, 2009 (UTC)

Searching delete history here... (I have replaced {{}} with & lt; & lt; & gt; & gt; to avoid the templates that appear here, and remove exclamation points to prevent them being deleted)

• 16:23, 8 February 2007 JzG (talk contribs) deleted "Wikipe-tan"? (WP: PT)
• 05:46, 4 October 2006 Centrx (talk contribs) deleted "Wikipe-tan"? (content is: '#REDIRECT Wikipedia: Wikipe-tan' (and the only contributor is 'Erisie'))
• 22:32, October 1, 2006 Thatcher (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipe-tan"? (Content is: '& lt; & lt; db | mainspace pollution, deleted multiple times & gt; & gt; & lt; & lt; softredirect | Wikipedia: Wikipe-tan & gt; & gt;')
• 11:02, 12 September 2006 Kusma (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipe-tan"? (WP: ASR, must be useful or redlink, content is: '& lt; & lt; deletedpage & gt; & gt; & lt; - Put comments to avoid list on shortpages Placing comments to avoid list on shortpages. avoid list... ')
• 22:32, 5 August 2006 WAvegetarian (talk contribs) remove "Wikipe-tan"? (cross-space redirects, again)
• 08:06, 5 August 2006 Delirium (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipe-tan"? (content is: '& lt; & lt; db | Cross-namespace redirect AGAIN Delete per RfD This has been created four times. & gt; & gt; #REDIRECT Wikipedia: Wikipe-tan')
• 21:37, 3 August 2006 Wwwwolf (talk contribs) deleted "Wikipe-tan"? (The seemingly unwanted redundancy of namespaces)
• 21:02, July 20, 2006 (aeropagitica) (talk contribs) deleted "Wikipe-tan"? (content is: '& lt; & lt; db | recreational redirects across namespace, deleted per [[Wikipedia: Redirect for deletion/Archive Redirection/July 2006 # Wikipe-tan -> Wikipedia: Wikip...')
• 18:15, July 5, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipe-tan"? (content is: '& lt; & lt; rfd & gt; & gt; #REDIRECT Wikipedia: Wikipe-tan' (and the only contributor is 'Grm wnr'))

The first takedown is acceptable, because the creator requests that the redirect be removed. That's good, but not a reason to prevent recreational redirects if someone other than Grm wants it there. The July 20 redirection link was disconnected because it was too short, but I managed to find it here. This only explains the reason for the first deletion. That does not explain why the 'recreation of redirect cross-name' previously deleted is unacceptable. For example, check this where User: Fastfission gives an explanation of the value of not just removing redirects. I assume that all redirects have historical value, and that every time these redirects are removed, the potential historical value will be removed. So I do not think there is a valid reason for aeropagitica doing this.

Aero, along with the deletion of follow-up by Delirium and the witch, has a page marked with Template: Db with only "cross-name redirects" repeatedly referred to as an excuse, but where is this explanation on Wikipedia? Ironically, there is no way to know what it is except to assume there is already a Wikipedia article in it. I am correct "Wikipedia: Cross-namespace redirects I make a crossover of new names for it, which is why the sentence quoted earlier is blue now and not red.I think it's less controversial and better explain my point in protest instead of making repeated Wikipe-tan again (after all, it has a rich deletion history that I want others to review before it was decided by consensus). Other wolf, vegetarian, centrex sensors follow these instructions even when the article is not tagged Db Kusma is uniquely referring Wikipedia: The CFS does not apply at all here because redirect is not an article, only articles can refer to itself.

The problem is 'Db' is a template that explains the criteria for quick deletion. If we see the redirection portion of the corresponding page, this # 2 reference declares " Redirection from the article name space to another namespace except Category:, Templates:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespace If redirect is the result of a move page, consider waiting a day or two before deleting redirects. "The problem is this does not explain why, why this is the rule. It depends on the Wikipedia problem: CNR has been mentioned before, so I added a 'See also' to this rule to help the reader understand this.

The problem here is that if the redirect violates the self reference then disambiguation will also do that. The big problem with this is that we want users to become familiar with wikipedia policies, and removing these redirects directly interferes with this. Many redirects of various forms of reference to the policy help people to find it. Otherwise, they have the same difficulties as me, having to figure out to type Wikipedia: before and experiment with it.

Currently Wikipe-tan does not have its own article in the main encyclopedia. The problem is, Wikipedia is an article. Why Wikipedia: Wikipedia (for some reason that leads to 'About') leave it redspace? Clearly, Wikipedia is encyclopedic, it's not a 'crack on the floor' nor Wikipe-tan because he's famous in his own right. A 'meme' to speak. I mean just looking, he is the first thing you see on Moe's anthropomorphism and he has appeared in news articles published about Wikipedia! Not to mention someone making this that no one seems to care about it being deleted even though it also becomes a cross-namespace (are the Japanese symbols not counted?)

Cross-namespace redirection is just something we should avoid if it is something that could be an article about a topic not related to Wikipedia. Adopt-a-User for example, could be a term adopted by something other than Wikipedia, whatever has the user. Why the transfer is allowed, but Wikipe-tan, something Wikipedia Wikipedian (and thus can not be denied by anything, Wikipe IN THE NAME) is not allowed?

I want to restore this redirect. I will do it if I visit here some time later and there is no valid objection to doing so. If someone knows which (or all) of these editing editors are still active, I would appreciate their input on this because they may be more familiar with the policies behind it and can explain this to me better. Actually, I will fight what I said before, I just make it back. I will link here in my recreational statement, and it can be discussed very well about it. If finally deleted again then the deletion log will show the things I just quoted again, along with the new material to discuss.

What would I ask: if someone deletes this again, hope you read this first. Please tell INDEPTHLY why you did, preferably with a link to a more detailed explanation of it here, due to space limitations in log deletion. Tyciol (talk) 21:33, March 14, 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an article, because it's important. If you read the article, you will see the article is standard, not all kinds of about or help pages. As for the rest, well, I'm sure other people can say better than me. ? Melodia Chaconne? (talk) 22:16, March 14, 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you are implying Wikipe-tan is not important. If he's not famous, you might want to start a crusade to get him removed from moe anthropomorphism because he features a star there. Why show something that is not important? If Wikipedia is famous, it extends to one of the most famous mascots of Wikipedia. Additionally I do not even argue to give her a mainspace article, just a redirect, or even a stub with disambiguation that explains that it's connected to a Wikipedia subarticle and not an encyclopedic article. Tyciol (talk) 01:55, March 15, 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. It is used as a sample image. Since this is a free pic, it's okay to use it. There is a line that calls him as an example, but it may have to be changed. There is hardly any 'star feature', and it has nothing to do with him as famous as a stand-alone article or not. The main point here, though, is that a redirect from the article space to another space is considered verboten. There are no articles in the Community portal, for example. ? Melodia Chaconne? (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You do not fully understand the article if you think he is just a sample image. The topic of the article is the personification of the 'moe' of a non-personal entity. An image of a random moe anime girl will NOT qualify. Wikipe-tan is a prime example, along with OS-tans (which may precede it). I personally think they are unequal at this point. If you delete a line that mentions him then you should delete his photo too, so go and do that and see how it goes with the people who monitor the article. Community portals ? That's not the right comparison: it's a description. Easily recognized by communities and portals. This is not a NAME like Wikipedia or Wikipe-tan that refers to a particular entity, not something that is very exchangeable, so please try again. Tyciol (talk) 04:06, March 15, 2009 (UTC)

I understand the article very well. Wikipe-tan is an example of moe anthropomorphism, he is completely free, so this is used. The fact that he is the personification of Wikipedia itself may be a great help for reasons to use it, but it does not make it famous in itself. ? Melodia Chaconne? (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not have a strong opinion, but given the history of the deletion, I would say that the right way forward, if forward is the desired direction, will be WP: DRV. The number of different admins involved makes it difficult to say that someone needs to reverse himself. So I would think that a full DRV would be the right way to officially cancel the salary. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:26, ​​â € <â €

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Wikipe-tan Request

Where can I request the creation of certain images from Wikipe-tan? Saturday Secret (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You can try sending a request in User talk: Kasuga; he occasionally creates a new Wikipe-tan image on request. ? ??? ?? ??! ? ^{? Ã, Â · Talk => Dinoguy1000} 18:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why ??? !!

Dear Wikipedia, do you hate kawaii aesthetic so you choose a worse green worm than Wikipe-tan as a Wikipedia mascot I do not understand! - Unmarked comments previously added by 94.24.208.18 (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Some people do not like the novel anime/manga/visual character - you should see some comments in the Related Featured image discussion for one of the Wikipe-tan images. ? ??? ?? ??! ? ^{? Ã, Â · Talk => Dinoguy1000} 18:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh, Wikipe-tan is the de facto mascot . Nobody really uses Wikipede. bibliomaniac 5 05:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Wikipede is not a mascot. He gets the most votes, but it's still less than a "no mascot" sound. Wikipe-tan, on the other hand, is a poster girl has various designs/costumes for demonstrating various topics. So despite having some frivolity, she is one of the most useful characters here. L-Zwei (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Choose whether or not to vote, Wikipe-tan is, now, our de facto mascot . Wikipede can include it (forgive my French), even if he does not really gather enough votes to become a mascot. = D ? ??? ?? ??! ? ^{? Ã, Â · Talk => Dinoguy1000} 17:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Wikipe-kun

There must be a male version of this... --ÃÆ'â € AUSSIE evil ÃÆ' â € 19:50, September 10 2009 (UTC)

The Kasuga talk page is there; I am actually very interested to see the male version of Wikipe-tan. ? ??? ?? ??! ? ^{? Ã, Â · Talk => Dinoguy1000} 21:39, September 10, 2009 (UTC)

Uhh... I do not know the costume of a boy who can make a couple with the girl's housekeeper's costume. (For example, a young elder?) --Kugauga (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

* shrugs * Maybe just make a sample image with some possible clothes and ask what people like best? In addition, the steward's clothes do sound good, now that you mention them. ? ??? ?? ??! ? ^{? Ã, Â · Talk => Dinoguy1000} 17:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Are not they about 15? That's a bit too old for WP-kun's potential to me. -> evil ÃÆ' â € 16:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a butler or something will work as well as complement the clothes of the waitress in Wikipe-tan. Ã, Â · Ã, Â · ??? ^? Ã, Â · ?? Ã, Â · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan hentai...

What's holding him there... Really? is it there? Not that I care... - Frank Fontaine (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe at one time there was a Wikipe-tan for a lolicon article, but the image was deleted. Beyond that, "adult Wikipe-tan in a bikini" is the most racist image of him that actually exists in his article. Willbyr (talk contribs) 01:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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

It's there. Let's stop there. _dk (talk) 02:13, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Well he's not as beautiful as Orihime from Bleach... - Frank Fontaine (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia dramatica has a photo of Hentai and also claims Jimbo is his older lover... They also hate him: --Frank Fontaine (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Dramatica hates EVERYTHING . Geez, that hentai belongs to one guro, the thumbnails that appear on Google searches are more than enough to make me feel sick. L-Zwei (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Find other great artwork.

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

This is licensed Creative Commons; Did anyone upload it to Commons? (and yes, that's a good idea =)) ? ??? ?? ??! ? ^{? Ã, Â · Talk => Dinoguy1000} 19:34, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

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

The NC license is not quite free for wikipedia.Ã, Â © Geni 19:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Okay, does CC allow licensing between different flavors? If so, someone can try to get the artist... ? ??? ?? ??! ? ^{? Ã, Â · Talk => Dinoguy1000} 19:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Artists can release it under other CC licenses (and there are legal arguments they should but are widely ignored) but unless you get their approval you are stuck with the current license. Ã, Â © Geni 20:22, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can reach them at a point, then. Which license should I recommend? ? ??? ?? ??! ? ^{? Ã, Â · Talk => Dinoguy1000} 16:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Yep, I'm fast like that. I am also at dA.Ã, :) Ã, Â · Ã, Â · Ã, Â · ??? ^? Ã, Â · ?? Ã, Â · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:14, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Yaaaaaa this article Kawaii has just gone up by 5000000 Percent! Good work.-- Sooo Kawaii !!! ^ __ ^ (talk) 10:17, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Also, does Kasuga want to see it? But I do not think he's around right now. --Sooo Kawaii !!! ^ __ ^ (talk) 10:54, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's watching this page for new things. "Also, thanks to you, Joe (for artist inauguration) and Geni (for uploading pic)! ? ??? ?? ??! ? ^{? Ã, Â · Talk => Dinoguy1000} 15:50, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

I'm a Deviant fan. The person should be provided for their IMO service. Saturday Secret (talk to me) 00:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I love the new pic !!! I was thinking to get in touch with the artist but it looks like someone is cruel to me !!! But thank you too !!! Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw ~ talk 16:29, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

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

Kasuga is a surname too, and not a very unusual one. Ã, Â · Ã, Â · ??? ^? Ã, Â · ?? Ã, Â · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:58, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

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

She per page on it. G.A.S ^talk 20:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok ok! I only find it hard to assume something so Kawaii can be made by a man...) = --Sooo Kawaii !!! ^ __ ^ (talk) 21:15, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm also quite surprised. But in the end it is an important work of art. ^ _ ^ G.A.S ^talk 21:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The only Manga/Anime I know that has been created by a woman is Full Metal Alchemist ... - Sooo Kawaii !!! ^ __ ^ (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Made by women: Sailor Moon, Red River , Saint Tail , Kodomo no Omocha , Inu Yasha , Maison Ikkoku , and the huge stack of others.

Created by man: Live Game , Orange Kimagure Road , Kiteretsu Daihyakka , Tsukuyomi: Phase Moon >, high school! Kimengumi , and a huge pile of other people. I can make a larger list... Ã, Â · Ã, Â · ??? ^? Ã, Â · ?? Ã, Â · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:02, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

* imagine CFD discussion for Category: Manga created by men and Category: Manga created by women * I AM ONLY BOTH; DO NOT CREATE THIS CATEGORY! =) For Kasuga's sex, I do not know why, but I think I always imagined him as a man, and I already knew for a while that he was actually a man. --Dinoguy1000Ã, (talkÃ, Ã, Â · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

NooooOOoOooOOoo !!!!

The Dramatica Encyclopedia has created a twisted version of the dearest Wikipe-tan. Take your torch and pitchfork! Rule the masses! Curse them! --Sooo Kawaii !!! ^ __ ^ (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Geez!

Wikipe-tan is an example of anamorphic Moe and is a Wikipedia mascot. Also, before you say "OMG Weeaboo shit" this image is made by someone who is actually 100% Japanese, Life in Japan and is a Japanese Wikipedia admin. --Sooo Kawaii !!! ^ __ ^ (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, why not go there? Or, better yet, on his personal site. This page has absolutely no place on wikipedia, let alone in the wikipedia namespace. --Jonnty (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There and all languages ​​on the left side. Why is he here? Simply, the images are used to demonstrate topics such as national costumes and events. And become a mascot on some projects Wikpedia. So he became part of the Wikipedia culture. That's why he's in the Wikipedia name space and not the main namespace. L-Zwei (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Who cares about this mascot besides you guys? How important at all for most users (ie normal people who are not members of the spec community)? - Predict unsigned comments plus 86.158.235.145 (talk o contribs) 18:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The introduction only applies to the mainspace, not to the space project. However, even in the mainspace, there have been enough articles about Wikipe-tan (and using pictures of themselves in various publications, as well) showing prominent circumstances. Ã, Â · Ã, Â · Ã, Â · ??? ^? Ã, Â · ?? Ã, Â · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Being in a WP namespace, this project will not show up in searches or random articles. So it will not bother anyone researching other topics. Really, only those who are interesting in this character or already know he will come to this page. L-Zwei (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

my points continue to be erased, so what's the use of - The comments that have not been previously signed are added by 90.195.10.97 (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Mengapa ini ada?

This whole section and the mascot itself only reinforces the stereotype of a Wikipedia contributor/editor (ie obsessive japanophiles). Not to mention the number of pictures and their styles that look as if this page is a DeviantArt profile that misplaced a dreadful basement dweller.

Is there any reason why "Wikipe-tan" (why do we even use Japanese? They have no meaning in English and I have not seen the honor of other languages ​​used anywhere) much less interested in the "moe" style that is it really horrible, or even worse, in sexually suggestive poses/clothing?

May get bot-deleted, reposting. I really want to know why you chose "moe" to be a mascot style, not another. Is there a sound? Have you considered the classical/western style? I just believe there is a better way to summarize the effort to make it free for all databases of all knowledge from some very cute girls lacking real human proportions. - Unmarked comments previously added by 83.208.8.80 (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan is an unofficial mascot made by Wikipedia fans. Yes, there is noise (I forget where), and Wikipe-tan is gone. This is a fan project, not an official Wikipedia project. Wikipedia has a lot of fan projects that use the Project namespace, so I'm not sure why you're so annoyed by this. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

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

I will not delete your comment again, but most of what you say is a bit hostile and also very bad. - Le Cleaner (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I then apologized, I was unaware of his unofficial status and I was somewhat affected by the recent "In the anime" debate and my growing displeasure with the number of manga related articles here. - No previous signed comments were added by 83.208.8.80 (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I work on other wikis, and I do not like it when one project goes the way I want. I am of course weeaboo and love manga, but I can still relate. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

On the bright side, this discussion produced some positive changes. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If you REALLY really want to know about things, check out moe anthropomorphism. This is not really an honor. ? Melodia Chaconne? (Talk) 23:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but that's an honor, albeit a cute one. Ã, Â · Ã, Â · ??? ^? Ã, Â · ?? Ã, Â · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Kawaii!

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

Name

Should not ??????? ( Wi kipe-tan) ? ? ? ? ?

The sound is not used in modern Japanese. ?? (Ui) represents the nearest sound in the language. -> AUSSIE evil ÃÆ' â € 02:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

lol

It looks like the kind of article found in the Dramatica Encyclopedia, maybe the Encyclopedia Dramatica copies the format for his article from this one? xD - Fernirm (talk) 05:20, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

This is not an article. ? Melodia Chaconne? (talk) 06:06, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

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

Uhhh...

Is this a legitimate article? If so, this needs to be seriously improved. Like... VERY bad. - No previous signed comments were added by 173.212.91.207 (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please point your view to the section above this one. thanks. Ã, Â · Ã, Â · ??? ^? Ã, Â · ?? Ã, Â · Talk to Nihonjoe Ã, Â · Join WikiProject Japan ! 04:44, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the number of links from the main room needs to be cropped. They must be flanked in {{selfref}}, if they have not. Just a thought :) - Quiddity (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I did everything I thought I should use it. Ã, Â · Ã, Â · ??? ^? Ã, Â · ?? Ã, Â · Talk to Nihonjoe Ã, Â · Join WikiProject Japan ! 06:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

website error

the cosplay page at the bottom has a html error - Unwritten comments added by WCLL HK (talk o contribs) 02:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Works well for me and runs IE 8. Maybe it is your web browser. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Images from Think Wikipe-tan

None of these original images and all have been cut or changed one possible POV, I will submit it to another editor if these images should be inserted here or not - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:33, February 20, 2011 (UTC) )

This is not an article. It does not matter if it's "POV". ? Melodia Chaconne? (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I added two out of three images but held on the Conservative version because there was a dispute over the image, no need to add fuel to the current fire. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:26, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan

I think this article is misleading by saying that I "recognize" Wikipe-tan. My deletion from the sexual version of commons does not support the standard version at all. I do not like Wikipe-tan and never. I realize that some people do it, and I'm not too nervous about it, but my name should not be called in a way that might make some people believe that I agree. Thank you! - Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

"Our new goal is to draw anime Jimbo Wales and add it to the user's page." Shii (tock) 12:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC) "Interesting! Pandelver (talk) 20:58, March 3, 2011 (UTC)

Why Never Delete a Page Like This, Apart from Individual Objection and Appreciation

because it is not only an anime character, including with any version extensions in the past or the future that is currently not installed, but the present nature, BECAUSE all the discussions, the character roles in life Wikipedia EDITING has now been made Wikipe-tan really iconic, and the unnecessary acute crystallization of what Wikipedia's activity is really like an organization? Especially the international agglomeration that has created it/us.

Openness in disclosing our collective process to users, visitors, perusers and Wikipedia-aware people who do not visit our pages often is part of Wikipedia's mission to register all the people online in the creation of an open global encyclopedia, and share and convey to them the standards , paradigms for cooperation and revision and linkage, and recognition, even fighting for disability, including in entertainment, humor, cultural issues, linguistic idioms, literary genres. We are one of the most proven repositories of notability even in what some people here verbally become ridiculous (as Wikipe-tan's judgment), we simply eliminate absurdity. We hope not to miss the inclusion of salience of significance, the prominent diversity of the eminent, or what is already and promise to remain an important historical element of the public taste.

I'm not an artistic fan of Wikipe-tan. I recognize its significance, more so because the way the fellow editor has a strong content opinion about himself and his colleagues, creators, fans, interpreters, and analysts, and because of the ongoing debate about it, is noted here for years and is still a living issue , made many Wikipedia editors' to him and each other through him the famous phenomenon of the scope of the internet. Perhaps one of you, a co-worker, should start a page about the social, communal Wikipedia impact, process, and methodological significance, and the past and evolving aesthetics, historiography, and Wikipe-tan myths? Please let me know when you do, I will be one of the many observers around the world who are interested in something that says as second thoughts directly among Russian voting residents who are currently noting about the design, symbolism, quality and significance of the next Olympic Mascot, has just been unveiled.

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

Question

Do we really need to put that he is a mascot (regardless of controversial or unofficial)? Because that part causes a lot of trouble and, IMO, is what makes a good editor upset about it. I am fine by simply describing it as moe anthropomorphism from Wikipedia which has many uses in various WikiProjects because it is a fact, not a subjective status. L-Zwei (talk) 06:54, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

He has been used as a mascot by the press. No matter how much he may be disliked by many people here, that fact still persists. I prefer to keep the mention of it, but do not think I would be so annoyed if it was deleted. The mention of the lower is explicitly supported by the reference, so it should not be deleted (unless Jimbo incurs another error, perhaps). ? ??? ?? ??! ? ^{? A? Dinoguy1000} 04:44, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

He is controversial as a mascot. I do not understand why it was deleted (especially with cmt to see the talk page, which has not hitherto discussed a particular part of the dispute). Lady from Shalott 01:10, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Is he controversial irrelevant. Although not an official mascot, he is clearly an unofficial mascot (one that seems to be much more widely used that the official mascot, Wikipede). Ã, Â · Ã, Â · ??? ^? Ã, Â · ?? Ã, Â · Talk to Nihonjoe Ã, Â · Join WikiProject Japan ! 06:42, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Can we let it become an unofficial mascot so we do not generate much controversy? This is not an article space where we have to be clear about everything. (Wikipede won the voice of the mascot, but no attempt to make it or the candidate to become the official mascot.) _dk (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Leading says the whole article is true, if it happens then there is no real part in the article that goes into this controversy or is explained by whom. The fact is that wikipe-tan is a mascot used by one or more project wikiproyek, and is seen as a mascot by the media so as to put it as a mascot in the right position in my opinion. I feel that the part that should be excluded is "from wikipedia" a bit, doing it leaves its status as a mascot open to opinions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Rationale?

"Some editors think the image is offensive" is not a valid reason to remove it. Seriously, "some editors" just hate Wikipe-tan just because he moe anthropomorphism from wikipedia. And I say you have to hate anime in general to think that File: Wikipe_tan_wearing_a_bikini_by_Kasuga39.png offensive. Geez, this image uses the adult version of Wikipe-tan, not its usual childrens version. His bikini is casual and he also does not make a suggestive pose. So I see no compelling reason why you think this is offensive. L-Zwei (talk) 16:38, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Personal comments, especially those relating to one's values ​​and beliefs (which you do not know, I might add) are generally unhelpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Heh, focus on my comment and ignore the fact why the image is not offensive? It is okay. Just wanted to point out that while you may insist that WP: IDONTLIKEIT applies here, it would mean that WP: ILIKEIT also applies here (both essays are opposition, but they are the same at the core - you want to remove/keep it up because of value and confidence your personal). L-Zwei (talk) 02:33, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

I understand some of the other editor's anger here, wikipe-tan supporters have been attacked in the past month or so of so-called "underserved underwors" with good faith assumption even though I do not think Nikkimaria is a danger here and just want to know what is the reason why some images are needed/stored here if they have been put elsewhere. I think the reason should be put here because yes not every wikipe-tan image is here, some of which are only included here and on the talk page can only be limited to talking pages to avoid future problems or put in categories (Hi just because they are not in this article does not mean you still can not find it and put it on wikipedia in a nice place), while others used by the project and on articles should be kept here maybe? Instead then the image is removed I think seeing it looks like no reason is imposed, make one here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

Warring edit records take many forms, one of which is 3RR ("3 in 24 hours"). Nikkimaria, you say "the reason for inclusion", but.. we are talking about the reasons for the previous exceptions. Why did it change? Given this is not an article, it is not necessary not to be a gallery, to meet certain standards, or to use only images that are not used elsewhere. I'm having trouble understanding the reasons apart from my personal point of view. tedder (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be of a low quality

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

File: Wikipe-tan goth wallpaper 2.jpg - the image looks too dark. Also has problems owned by other wallpapers (see below).

File: Wikipe-tan (burqa).png - pictures taken very badly.

Questionable low quality

File: Wikipe-tan avatar.png - it could be that it is to imitate the old pixel avatar art. Must judge that on a case by case basis.

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

More

File: Wikipe-tan sorceress.png - no version

Source of the article : Wikipedia