This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anime and manga This page is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles Wikipedia This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles Fictional characters This page is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

A really silly page, with no WP:Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing it doesn't need reliable sources, as it's not an article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• If you get this out of projectspace, anyone is welcome to have a personal or shared gallery fawning over Wikipe-tan all they want, I guess - But we certainly don't need fandom galleries in projectspace. Furthermore, anyone uploading/using explicitly sexual pictures of Wikipedia-as-a-cartoon-girl-mascot-thing should be sanctioned for bringing the project into disrepute (and being generally creepy). Feel free to take my opinion with a grain of salt, though, because I know that somehow there will always be consensus to keep even the most chillingly embarrassing and inappropriate versions of this thing. I'm usually good at compartmentalizing that reality, keeping it separate from the rest of my impression of the Wikipedia community, but since noticing that Commons has multiple categories dedicated to sexualized Wikipe-tans, I'm disgusted anew. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your loathing of Wikipe-tan is well established, but I feel like it’s kind of an overreaction to think naked anime girls are going to “bring the project into disrepute”. Yes there’s criticism of pornography on commons and “overly sexual” aspects of Wikipedia culture making female contributors uncomfortable, but I feel like in practice the biggest sex-related faux pas in Wikipedia history had absolutely nothing to do with Wikipe-tan, and the only Wikipe-tan-related high-profile incident was about a lolicon version which is very different than a sexualized adult version. Dronebogus (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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