Talk:OS-tan

message: :Image:Ostan98-mechbox.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Ostan98-mechbox.png

message: The link for trouble windows translations leads to a working page, however all sections lead to server errors. Delete the link? anger2headshot 02:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link does not work 

message: I would add this to the article, but it's of unknown origin, perhaps someone knows more?
http://stage6.divx.com/user/Corne/video/1065260/hentai 
[not hentai in the least, btw]02:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: xp-tan animation

message: The caption of the group picture does not match the caption given when you click on the picture.  Aside from variations (they should be merged into something better than either), they are inconsistent.  I do not know enough about the subject to correct them.  Would someone please fix them?  --64.186.168.178 23:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Group image caption

message: It is always very hard to find references for internet phenomena; this is inherent in the subject. Internet phenomena are not usually the focus of scientific research and no papers are published about them. Most articles that you can find on the Internet about such phenomena lack sources themselves and this makes it nigh impossible to tell whether what is said is a fact, an opinion or a fairy-tale. That said, this article is in desperate need of references; otherwise it might not survive a future deletion review, which would be a pity. 82.139.85.81 00:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Hi, this page is too long please archive any old discussion threads. Benjiboi 02:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  archive old talk discussion 

message: Three new OS-tans were just added.  Is there concensus that these three should be included?  We had an extensive discussion about this not that long ago and a lot of the OS-tans were deleted.  I just don't want people to keep adding to it indefinately.  -- Nimrand (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Newly added OS-tans

message: I noticed from the deletion discussion about sources in relation to this article.  Recommend getting some links and dumping them here -- OR -- using them in the article.
Here's a sample, but it's not usable as it makes a direct reference to this article itself:
http://www.wired.com/culture/design/multimedia/2007/04/gallery_mascots?slide=10&slideView=1
KyuuA4 (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been constant sourcing issues in this article, and honestly I can't see why this article was kept yet again. While there are some sources there, they hardly source much and some of them I think are still questionable. For example the existence of a flash cartoon is being used to support conjecture about its place in os-tan history. Conclusions are being drawn and theories put forth for which there is no reliable source.--Crossmr (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: With a further look at these sources there doesn't appear to be a single reliable source about OS-Tans other than the wired article which references this wikipedia article (which makes its a questionable source at best). I notice in the previous Afd, there were lots of claims of how wide spread this was, but everyone failed to pony up some sources to back up those claims. The link itself hardly qualifies as significant coverage as required by the guidelines .--Crossmr (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Ohzora had published a book based on the OS-tan. There is another from Pink Company. Both sources had been located, and the main site was updated to reflect the change. --Jacob Poon 05:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: There is a lot of opinion expressed in these descriptions. A lot of editor opinions about what usually is done with them, a lot of subjective statements about how they're drawn, etc without any citation. Looking at a few pictures of each one and making a judgment call about what is usual, common, or why something is drawn a certain way is blatant original research.--Crossmr (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that we remove all the content in the examples section, and replace it with specific examples of published OS-tan drawings, and discuss details about only those examples (not how various os-tans are drawn in general).  Unless we can find a suitable reference (which probably only exists in Japanese, if at all), its seems to be the only way to fix the OR issue.  Also, I would suggest reducing the size of the list.  Four should be enough, two example windows os-tans (which seem to be the most common), and one example os-tan for each of Linux and Mac.Nimrand (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire article needs to be removed, and I can't believe how many editors are completely blind to that. We still have all this time and we can't find a reliable source about them to establish notability. Any other article and it would have been gone a long time ago. Frankly this is kind of embarrassing for an encyclopedia that tries to hold itself to some standards and yet we hold on to some tired internet meme for which there aren't any sources.--Crossmr (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think this kind of article BELONGS on Wikipedia, otherwise people like myself would have to scour the less reputable internet sites in order to figure out what people were talking about. I mean, seriously, don't you guys realize that Wikipedia is expected to have information on everything? I realize that may not be quite what it was originally intended to be, but for better or for worse, this place IS the first go to for many things. Sadly, not all of which are actually here because of people saying it isn't worthy of having entries. Insofar as the descritions go, I do agree they're fairly Original Research, but I think it's time Wikipedia realized that valid third party resources aren't always going to be an option.--68.111.243.35 (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  tan descriptions a bundle of OR 

message: I'm not following on why this image in particular was deleted. Reasons showed "No Justification" for the use of the non-free image. I wouldn't bring this to attention if it weren't for the fact the other OS-tan images, such as XP's and ME's, are equally at fault for it. Was there a reason other than the given one for the 95-tan image specifically to be deleted? If there wasn't, I humbly suggest bringing the image back if it's at all possible. Likewise, though I'm strongly against it, I humbly suggest deleting the other images as well unless there's some special case of exceptions I'm not seeing.
King Arthur6687 (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Image rules are really complicated.  I'll fix the ones that are still here.  --Phirazo 00:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding recent deletion of Windows 95 OS-tan image 

message: I recently noticed that CE-Tan and Windows Server-Tan were recently deleted and a discussion request was made to discuss on whether or not they should be addded.
My reasoning for adding them is that they are listed in the Canon-list of OS-tans on the OS-Tan wiki site.  Are there any objections to re-adding them?  Dasmarinas71 (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of them are mentioned in Moe anthropomorphism for an overview over anthromorphic personifications in manga/anime. I fear, that some (or all?) of your examples don't fit in the current mindset of most writers of the OS-tan article. I don't know for sure. --Yamavu (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted OS-tans? 

message: Don't all of them have shortened names that go with "-tan",like ME-tan and XP-tan? If so,we should include them 23:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  -tan? 

message: A little trivial, I know, but who decided on the wording in the intro to say "It is important to note" bla bla bla... important according to who? Couldn't we just say something along the lines of "OS-tans predating these include..." or something similar? Geqo (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  In the future, I would encourage you to be bold and just go ahead and make these kinds of prose corrections, unless have reason to believe that the change would be controversial.Nimrand (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I think we have her wrong. That XP seems to be proffesional,not home. 01:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was going to say that her description sounds wrong in general. The issues such as bloating and using up resources and such sounds more like a description of Vista, at least from my experiences.--68.111.243.35 (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try to think back to when XP was new. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  About XP 

message: Is there any reason or speculation as to why there is no character personifying Windows NT?--Kencaesi (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about the current list of OS-tans 

message: The OS-tan pic of Windows 7 was deleted due to copyright/no fair use.  However, as an 'official' mascot of Japanese Windows 7, there is no free equivalent, since the character is copyrighted.  Any ideas on a compromise?  Sera404 (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, someone is actually copyrighting these characterizations and images? I thought they'd all been made up by places like 4chan and 2chan. Some sources of information about that would be good to include in the article.--68.111.243.35 (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the article. The Windows 7 OS-tan isn't like the rest, because it's an official mascot created by Microsoft. The article specifically mentions it being the first time a company has created its own OS-tan. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows 7 pic deleted 

message: The word OS-tan is being used as a plural noun too often in this article, but cannot be considered as such because there are also singular uses of it. Please watch your grammar while editing this article.
Also remember that this talk page isn't a forum. I removed one thread not complying with that.
Thank you.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar, WP:NOTAFORUM 

message: We simply can't link to Wikipedia essays in encyclopedic articles. I don't think I can really say anything besides that that'll add anything.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Wikipe-tan is not an essay as it is not marked as such. It's in the project namespace only because Wikipe-tan is an unofficial mascot of Wikipedia and thus related to the project, but read the page-it's actually a full encyclopedia article.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the project space precisely because it is not an encyclopedia. Plenty of topics related to wikipedia have their own articles because they are notable enough, while the Wikipe-tan entry is not structured as a notable, verifiable encyclopedia article. But I do apologize for labeling it an essay, I was wrong.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, as it's also a moe anthroponism (don't know how to spell), it should be listed here, perhaps as a piped link.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the spelling of that always trips me up too, no worries. But I don't see how a piped link could possibly make it more acceptable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why the Wikipe-tan page is not encyclopedic because it contains all the components of an article. I don't see how that could not be acceptable.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an article, and doesn't hold up to the standards of notability, verifiability, and all the other policies and guidelines required to exist.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? It's notable and verifiable within the Wikipedia community. Given that that page links to this, I don't see why you're so inclined for it not to link.Jasper Deng (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That page can link to whatever it wants; it's not in the article namespace so anything can be added (you'll note it's full of user made pictures, templates and user boxes for editors to use, etc. Articles, however, have much more stringent requirements of what they can link to.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you reference a WP policy?Jasper Deng (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (self-references to avoid)--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the page is not actually about the project, but something very related to this article.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was an accepted article on Wikipe-tan, there would be no issue with linking to it in an article. But basically, unless the article is actually about something that information from the project space is needed to explain (for example, Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia there's no acceptable reason to link to it. Sorry.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essays 

message: Some controversy is going on in the Windows 3.1x section. According to the article on Windows 3.1x, Windows 3.1 is an operating system even though it does not have its own kernel and depends on MS-DOS. Is this a fair statement? If we're going to disagree then the Windows 3.1x article also needs to be changed. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows 3.1x 

message: Microsoft's Taiwan intro to Silverlight shows a mascot, presumably Silverlight-tan. Should this be added too?--Quatroking (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silverlight-tan? 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://sgcafe.com/2011/11/microsoft-windows-7-ultimate-dsp-nanami-edition-gets-limited-pack/
*:Triggered by \bsgcafe\.com\b on the local blacklist
*http://sgcafe.com/2012/04/microsoft-x-mmd-through-the-window/
*:Triggered by \bsgcafe\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 16:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Did anyone notice that Yuu and Ai have the same pronounciation of the english words You and I?
93.33.137.85 (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. That's surely intentional, but we'd need a reliable source for that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madobe Yuu and Ai pronounciation same as You and I 

message: I've burned over an hour trying to clean this up, and it still needs more. I've been focusing on: putting transliterated Japanese (other than proper names) into italics per MOS:FOREIGN; lower-casing of SCREAMING ALL-CAPS;  or  markup around Japanese-script matter (but not in titles and other names in citation templates); removal of redundant re-re-re-repeating of fictional surnames; fixing inconsistent name spellings; fixing over-capitalizations of -tan as -Tan; clear separation of fictional back-story from real-world facts; date cleanup (we do not use YYYY-MM-DD in article text, though ISO dates are permissible – but a terrible idea – in citations); trying to repair lots of mangled English; and on and on. Someone else please take a pass through it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a lot of cleanup 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: I noticed that someone removed the reference to OS-tan Collections as it is outdated in terms of character names for the Futaba characters, the links redirect to spam + NSFW content anyway as the moderation seems to be lacking there.
is there any use adding it back as there are much better places that have up-to-date info with proper external links with actual info (OSC references hardly any).
Edit: It seems like they fixed the links and such on OSC's wiki but still don't have very good refs for characters --Sinclair-Speccy (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any use having OS-tan Collections in the external links again? 

message: Considering this is an article about representations of Windows operating systems as anime girls, it could do with some additional images for representation to help demonstrate the topic better in my opinion. I know it's hard to get images with the proper usage rights though. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Images?