Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan

Wikipe-tan

One of our mascot characters, our adorable Wikipe-tan :) Drawn by User:Kasuga and used for illustrative purposes on the Moé anthropomorphism page.

Nominate and support. - _dk 02:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second and happily support. She's so adorable! n.n<3 ~Kylu (u|t) 02:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Featured content should not be self-referential. Outriggr 03:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The criteria does not forbid self-referential material. _dk 03:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think this is implicit. I recently saw a discussion somewhere about how the article "Wikipedia" could not fairly be a featured article on the front page. I believe similar values should apply to featured pictures. Outriggr 04:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is a featured article though. If you follow that reasoning, this should be made a featured picture, but it should never appear on the front page. —Keenan Pepper 04:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Exactly. And since all FP's eventually appear on the front page..... Outriggr 05:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Wrong. All FP's don't necessarily need to appear on the front page, just as all FA's don't. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-02 19:23
        Brian, you'll have to excuse me if I'm incorrect, but my statement was based on "Featured images are currently selected in the order they were promoted. See the featured pictures candidates archive for this order.", from the Picture of the Day page. Outriggr 21:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Ironically she's on the Main page right now, unrelated to this FPC. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        See my comment below about how her value is more than her Wiki name and theme. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia is very likely to be not a FA in a short while. See WP:FAR. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Interesting, but besides the point. -- Ned Scott 09:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, this is a tricky one. She is adorable, and the image satisfies all the FP criteria except possibly #5 (adding value to an article). It does appear on OS-tan and Moé anthropomorphism, though, and it seems to add some value to those, so I say weak support. (The "weak" is because of the self-promotion issue, and also because I'd much prefer an SVG version.) —Keenan Pepper 03:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice illustration and fits most if not all of the criteria. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 04:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's very hard to find quality free license anime images, and often time such articles are forced to make a fair use claim. Thus her worth is more than just being a -tan for Wikipedia. With this in mind I think I'll look for some more appropriate articles for her to show up on, as I'm a bit surprised to see she's only on 2 actual articles right now. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Doesn't matter that it shows wikipedia. This is one of the VERY few examples of anime art in wikipedia that is not fair use. It also illustrates the very wierd concept of Moé anthropomorphism well. -Ravedave 05:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hah I didn't notice Ned Scott's entry I was thinking in exactly the same line. -Ravedave 05:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't really find it that spectacular. Image suffers from a lack of antialiasing. Also I personally hate that kind of cartoon - they're degrading good old Bugs bunny and the like! (Eyebrows ontop of the hair! :-) --Fir0002 12:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing the image because you hate anime is just.. flawed. This isn't about your personal tastes here. The image suffices for all the criteria on Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?. There are featured articles on subjects that I roll my eyes at, but that doesn't change the fact that the article itself is well written, has references, and everything else required to be a featured article. It's the same issue here, it's not about whether or not you like the art style or like the culture. -- Ned Scott 13:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not opposing for that reason I simply added that as an extra part to my comment. I'm opposing because I don't find it a spectacular example of cartoons/anime and I think the image should have had antialiasing applied (note the jagged lines on the legs etc) --Fir0002 21:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I support the pic, Fir0002 has a right to disagree based on taste. See criteria #7 "Be pleasing to the eye." FP is and always will be subjective. -Ravedave 21:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I don't understand why it would have to be a "spectacular example" for anime. I always figured "impressive yet neutral" was more the Wikipedia way. -- Ned Scott 23:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You saying this images degrades "Bugs Bunny and the like" is extremely ignorant. You are obviously unfamiliar with the subject matter this illustrates, as if you'd watched some anime that isn't Pokemon or DragonBall Z, you'd know that many manga/anime artists draw eyebrows on top of the hair. Even if you were being tongue-in-cheek, it has no place here, and does not justify your oppose vote. - Phorque 08:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec, I know such comments can be frustrating for us anime fans, but I already made the mistake of snapping back at this comment (and for that, I apologies). You can see from Fir0002's comments that he has additional concerns besides that, and as Ravedave pointed out, he does have a right to oppose. -- Ned Scott 08:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not up to the standards of commercial anime/manga. The character design and pose are basic, and the hands in particular stand out as poorly drawn. I don't think I agree with the notion of promoting a second-rate image just because it's one of the only ones under a free license. Redquark 14:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I very much disagree with this assertion. Anime style and quality has a huge range on the commercial market, being "simple" does not make something low quality in the anime world. -- Ned Scott 00:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not horrible, but I know fanart when I see it. I'll bet the artist isn't able to draw characters in anything other than a 3/4 view. Redquark 13:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I didn't list her under anime, but moe anthropomorphism instead. And please keep it civil, the artist is also a wikipedian. _dk 08:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. How much do you bet, Redquark? --Kasuga 12:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I looked at the guy's work a little beforehand to see if I was claiming something false but managed to miss that one. Still, OK, sure you countered what I specifically said, but not the underlying point. Show me the character in a funny position with foreshortening and then I'll concede the artist has more ability than I thought. Redquark 13:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you use roundabout words like "the guy" and "the artist"? Though I am the artist himself. --Kasuga 17:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - not high quality, does not add substantially to or help understanding of the article, self reference BigDT 19:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See above, there's nothing wrong with self referential material. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 23:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be one of those users who just "has to" address every opposing comment, but I really don't understand how you can say that she doesn't help in articles such as Anime or moé anthropomorphization. These totally visual concepts, and if you look, she's the only free use image we have for these articles. She's a perfect example of "typical anime", just as much if not more than the fair use examples that are also used. With this logic, Wikipe-tan and similar images do substantially add to an understanding of what anime looks like. I really don't see how anyone can make the argument that she doesn't show you what anime (or moé anthropomorphization) looks like, or that images aren't needed for these articles. -- Ned Scott 23:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Just because they are not explicitly prohibited doesn't mean there is "nothing wrong" with them. Featured pictures are supposed to showcase the best we have to offer ... and a self-referential picture is not it. BigDT 00:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this does get promoted, I do not think the POTD caption has to be a self-reference and mention anything about it being a moé anthropomorphism of Wikipedia, or it being a mascot of a WikiProject. It can just basically say it is an example of anime. Otherwise, there will be most likely be complaints posted on Talk:Main Page, etc. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question In response to the "jagged lines" on Wikipie-tan when you see her at full size: in the case that Kasuga isn't able to provide a version that fixes that, couldn't we just scale the image down slightly and still meet requirement number 2 (which says "images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported")? Her image is large enough to do this, and it really wouldn't "sacrifice" anything. -- Ned Scott 00:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute, free, and Wikipedia in one -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it.Nnfolz 05:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Thygard. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 06:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite a good cartoon. Free use, even better. Large enough so that full-size pixelation doesn't matter. Self-reference no problem, a good example of an anime character. --Janke | Talk 06:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ned Scott. —pfahlstrom 07:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose--Vircabutar 07:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure this isn't a vote.. so maybe you'd like to actually say why you oppose? -- Ned Scott 08:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't fool yourself. It's a vote. Same with RFA, AFD, etc. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-03 14:39
Wrong. It's not a vote, and neither is AFD. Quote The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. --69.204.179.124 17:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm surprising myself here, but, really, this is a perfect illustration of a pretty bizarre concept. The fact that it's a Wikipedia anthropomorphisation detracts slightly for me, but not badly so. Stevage 10:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support. If the 'jaggies' can be fixed, I'll support. Otherwise, it's an oppose. I'm not bothered by the self-referential nature, because it illustrates moé very well, even without knowing that the image is an anthropomorphism (homomorphism, gynomorphism?) of the 'pedia. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good, free image, and it certainly contributes to wikipedia as a whole if not any specific article. Besides, she's cute. --tjstrf 18:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - I dunno, maybe I just have a case of Anthropomorphobia but this seems kinda dull. I don't get why she's dressed up as a maid. And I have to agree with some of the others that some areas are not especially well drawn. Is she sticking out her tounge? --Henry A-W 20:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Fanservice (and look, she's there too :D). Not sure what you mean about the tongue, the way the mouth is drawn is pretty typical for any animation, not just anime. -- Ned Scott 22:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Support. I've always wanted to see an anime-related thing on the front page. She's a great character, and this certainly meets the featured picture specifications. Heck, I may even make this image into a T-shirt. It would make a good conversation enhancer. Now all that's left is to make her official mascot of Wikipedia. :P --Ppk01 21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High-quality, user-created exemplar. --Oldak Quill 23:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just thought I'd point out that this image is currently on the Main Page accompanying some text in the "Did you know..." section! -- Ned Scott 23:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they changed it to a cropped version of her (they must have wanted to see her better :D), but none the less, same image Image:Wikipe-tan cropped.png -- Ned Scott 04:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: forget the artwork, where's the encyclopedic content? The image needs an extended caption describing in what ways it is meant to be an accurate representative of *-tans. This is especially important because it wasn't found "in the wild", as it were. Melchoir 23:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An easy fix, but she's currently protected because she's on the main page, so it might be a little bit before that can be fixed. -- Ned Scott 23:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, hmm. Well, as long as people are watching, can't we (and by "we" I mean other people) hash out a description on this page? Melchoir 23:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She's back open, but anyways I have a question. There's a few images of Wikipe-tan, and she has a Wikipedia namespace page at Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan that seems to have the additional write up you are requesting. Would be pointing to this page be enough, or should I just cut and paste? Since there's more than one Wikipe image, wouldn't it be better to have an over-all page with the write up instead of repeating it on each image? Not that it would really be a big deal or anything, either way. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the comments of many, specifically that it isn't the best representation of anime we can have. Morgan695 01:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But she's also a representation on moé anthropomorphization and fan service. Even if your personal opinion is that she doesn't reflect average anime, she's still a hell of a good example for moé anthropomorphization. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice.--Generalnonsensecomic 01:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Support She was specially created for the Wikipedia --Taichi 04:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Picture isn't particularly eye-catching or amazing, but being the best free image we have for lots of situations, it's pretty good. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support She's Wikipe-tan, that's enough. L-Zwei 05:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um actually that's not. --Fir0002 06:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he was serious ;) -- Ned Scott 06:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - Like many have said, this meets the criteria. Wikipe-tan is a well loved character and I would like to see her as a featured picture. Calicore 06:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I'm not sure exactly how to go about judging these "cartoons". I weak support it because it meets criteria, but I don't know how encyclopedic it is. It reminds me a lot of Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Pirate. --Tewy 06:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Creepy as hell, but the perfect example. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it! KAWAII. — Deckill e r 07:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Some have said that she isn't a very good anime drawing, and perhaps that is the case, but she does demonstrate Moé anthropomorphism very well. —Cuiviénen 08:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find that I agree with the nom and most supports above and do not find most people's oppositions because of taste/opinion of the drawing style at all relevant. Anime/manga has a HUGE range of quality/styles, why should she reflect only your personal taste? Other criticisms such as the need for anti-aliasing etc, are easily addressed if it really holds this back from being FP. On a side note: I don't really think "OMFG KAWAII!!!^___^<3" is a reason to support, but hey. - Phorque 08:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem we'll actually need to "fix" the anti-aliasing issue. Even without Dante Alighieri's conditional support, she's sitting at 73% support.

Considering the size of the image, we could just scale her down and re-upload and she's still be huge and wouldn't have the aliasing issue. However, that seems a bit silly to me, because if we just keep her file the same but scale the image via the browser it will make the exact same effect, and preserve more of the image's quality. I doubt she'll ever be used at "full size", and thus it's not really an issue.. Like I said, any downscaling or filtering would actually reduce the over-all quality preserved and not really change what you see on articles. -- Ned Scott 09:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could the image be converted to an SVG? --Oldak Quill 11:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From ja:利用者‐会話:Kasuga#Image:Wikipe-tan.jpg, Kasuga, the creator, writes "Regrettably, I can't offer SVG version, because I drew it in raster format." -- Ned Scott 11:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Our very own -tan, and a very well done example of moe goodness. Kyaa the Catlord 13:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]