The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When editing this article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve it, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Per Wikipedia's child protection policy, any editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles on- or off-wiki, will be blocked or banned. Additionally, WMF Terms of Use prohibits following two actions, which may result in office actions, including being banned from editing all Wikimedia sites:
Posting child pornography or any other content that violates applicable law concerning child pornography or child sexual abuse material, or encouraging, grooming, or advocating for others to create or share such material;
Soliciting personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18 years, or under the age of majority where you are if higher than 18 years, for an illegal purpose or violating any applicable law regarding the health or well-being of minors.
Please report any incidents to legal-reportswikimedia.org.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture 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.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-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.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsVisual arts
The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The image used on this page contains an illicit image of inklings from splatoon, which are characters that are 14 years old. Is there any way to report the user who added it and change the image to anything else? Whatever can be done to take down the image is for the best, I feel. ~2025-40178-11 (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
pinging @Dabmasterars as the editor who added the illustrations, not to 'report' them as this TA suggested. the choice of images could certainly be improved here. looking at the linked Commons category, the best options I see are Bowsette (Internet famous fan-made character, surprisingly free) and our own mascot Wikipe-tan (the adult version; avoiding as while there is no prohibition per se in using her for pornographic works, it is taboo after she was used in an old version for the article Lolicon). Juwan🕊️🌈13:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
1. This is not pornography. No characters are having sex. These images are erotic, not pornographic.
2. Child pornography involves real children. The characters depicted on the images are purely fictional.
3. The images were already nominated for deletion on Commons but were kept (this was for fan art guideline reasons, but still).
4. The "taboo" of using erotic images of Wikipe-tan was set by Jimmy Wales, who erroneously deleted photos of Wikipetan that were later undeleted (1, 2, 3) due to Wales' deletion reason being pretty much "I don't like it", an invalid reason.
If you have any more questions, I'll answer them. Note that I'm neither the creator nor the uploader of these images, I only added them due to them fitting the article. Oh, and don't try remove the images without a proper reason, it will get reverted immediately. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 14:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Dabmasterars thanks for the response given. though a lot of it is quite not directed at the point I was trying to make.
re point 1–2: the distinction between child pornography and erotic content involving young fictional characters is not too relevant to me, as the concern raised here would apply either way.
re point 5 and last sentence: not suggesting to censor but a more suitable replacement (WP:GRATUITOUS). re: for point 4 is not saying that one should avoid solely because of taboo, but laying out my rationale as to avoid a discussion like this from comming up again.
Personally, I'd argue that no lead image (as was the case with the Not safe for work article) would be more suitable than the current image. (Frankly I'm surprised that the current image had even survived a deletion request on Commons, but that's a different scenario.) Sugar Tax (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree that Wikipe-tan fits better as an example, though the images need to be separated a bit.
Also, I just now realized how stupid the original point of discussion is, considering the Splatoon characters are clearly aged up; though I don't think we need these images anymore, as they don't illustrate anything particularly different from regular Rule 34, which is already illustrated twice. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 06:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I absolutely object to using any image of Wikipe-tan for multiple reasons. First of all, the character is a child and was created and envisioned as a child, and having her "aged up" doesn't change that. Secondly, using what is, in effect, a mascot of Wikipedia creates the impression that the image is endorsed by WMF/the community in some way. Especially considering how the image is barely skirting around pedophilia/"lolicon" content, that should not be the message that we want broadcast to the public. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan, I personally don't get the history of wikipe tan. One of these days I will have to take a look.
This discussion has been closedby Issac I Navarro. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closedby Issac I Navarro. Please do not modify it.
@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan I know that this is not a WP:FOURM. And this is very off topic. However, could you link me to what makes wikipe tan Pedophillic?
I know about the Jimmy Wales deletion of the Wikipe-tan images and and I keep hearing something about the creator of Wikipe-tan. All I know about the creator, is that they are an Admin on Japanese language Wikipedia, other then that, I really know nothing about Wikipe-tan.
I see we have Wikipedia mascots, and Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan as pages yet none really explain Wikipe-tan history. Most information I keep seeing seems to be more community lore that I haven't been around long enough to know about. But, I have been here a while and have seen some common comments and talking points that are consistently being brought up.
@Issac I Navarro: Essentially, Wikipe-tan was created by a user named Kasuga. Outside of Wikipedia editing, Kasuga was an artist of lolicon pornography, and they made uncensored pornographic images of Wikipe-tan (including in her toddler form). When viewed through that lens, it becomes clear that the choice to make her design be a toddler in a maid outfit was clearly a fetish thing, so many people are uncomfortable with her at all. I think this is partly why WMF designed an entirely new mascot (Baby Globe) instead of using Wikipe-tan in any official material. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan , if that is the case; excuse my language, but why the fuck do we keep her around?? No wonder I never seen the foundation make any reference to her. From that context it seem akin to saving the Bellamy Salute. I feel like that should be more clear to more casual folk.
Because, I been editing for a while now, and that hasn't been all that blunt and clear to me. Even regarding the two pages that I mentioned, both don't seem to be all that blunt. My lack of community knowledge and lore may be because I don't go to noticeboard or keep up with any individual editors. I usually just edit and keep to myself.
Maybe it is just a me issue that I didn't fully grasp the level that Wikipe-tan was made as a fetish thing. And want to see it as a positive thing. Because every time I seen Wikipe-tan my thought has been "oh, that neat."
I looked up the creator now and it seems that they used to be an administrator on Japanese. Is there a reason why we don't mention Wikipe-tan creator and be more blunt and clear? Do we as a community have shame about its history? If so why would WikiProject Anime still use her? Do you know any links to any archives that I can read up on? Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
As shown on the Japanese user page for 利用者:Kasuga~jawiki it states that they used to be an admin using google translate: "I served as an administrator of the Japanese Wikipedia from July 2 , 2006 (I stepped down on January 15, 2010)."""2006年7月2日から、ウィキペディア日本語版の管理者に就任しました（2010年1月15日退任" I am seeing that it seems they are active on twitter: https://x.com/kasuga391 I decided to take a look at danbooru and searched for kasuga_(kasuga39) there is a lot of lolicon pornography in the same art style I can see why Larry Sanger did Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons. There is a lot lolicon I did not see any of wikipe-tan. however, why the fuck is Wikiproject anime or anyone useing wikipe tan after knowing this??? I was not aware of the full extant and I have been on Wikipedia for a while. I am a rather new editor as I been on the platform for only a few years now, but still... I have ran into people mentioning it, but never being blunt. I feel like I should of ran into this given I do edit some NSFW topics. Furthermore, this may better better for Wikipedia mascots, but can we be blunt in that page? Of something, I am not how sure how it should be worded though. Issac I Navarro (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think the other art not made by Kasuga is still neat, as it seems more innocent in its intent. That’s how I’ve always seen Wikip tan: as something innocent. and even these softcore NSFW examples of Wikipetan seemed like a dumb art with no real malicious intent. But after looking and seeing the little I have seen online, Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales, are right not to like this character. Issac I Navarro (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Okay. Well, then the original claim of the artist making porn of toddler Wikipe-tan is not proven, still.I doubt that this is an issue, really, unless anything else is shown. The image is depicting a fictional adult. I would strongly support the inclusion of the image. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he|talk to me, maybe? ) 23:04, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why do you "strongly support" that specific image? It really doesn't matter what image is used as long as the concept of rule 34 is communicated, so why bother using a controversial image if it can be easily avoided? ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've always seen it in a "separate the art from the artist" sort of way. Since she's creative commons, there's no possible way for Kasuga to profit from her in any way. Also, her design is based on ME-tan, so I don't think she was made to be fetishistic or a toddler. Plus I think I read somewhere on their Twitter that they're glad they didn't do "anything extreme" with her, so the pornographic art of her they're talking about was probably fan art or a photoshop. New editing editor (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
On second thought, the image should probably be reverted further back to this one instead. I'm pretty sure that whole "Kasuga made porn of Wikipe-tan" rumor started because that exact image was misattributed to him on Danbooru instead of the person who made the third party edit. New editing editor (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Done If it makes you feel any better, Wikipe-tan is DEFINITELY not a fetish thing. According to this video, turning different concepts into maids was just a popular trend on the Japanese internet around the time she was made. New editing editor (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@New editing editor, one day, i will do a deep dive and make an informed decision myself, about Wikipe-tan. But for now, I am seeing it as odd, for lack of a better words.
I am okay with fetish stuff. I like to think I can be open-minded. I'm quite active on Commons and have nominated for deletion hundreds of files about nudity and categorized thousands more. So that is not necessarily a hard no for me. But when it comes to kids, that is a hell no! As I've been very blunt at the current RfC on Lolicon. And we should just call it what it is.
I can definitely agree that lolicon is abhorrent. I think for me, knowing that Kasuga is barred from ever monetarily gaining from her and that a ton of the Wikipe-tan example images aren't even made by him anymore eases a lot of the discomfort I have with her usage (but I get why others would feel differently). Maybe that's why Wales said he isn't "particularly agitated" with the fact that people like her, but I digress. New editing editor (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I really don't see any reason to restore the Wikipe-tan image. I don't know why it matters so much, the point of having an image is to represent the concept and the current image does that perfectly well. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Rule 34 is about pornographic fan art. The current image doesn't convey the "fan art" part and the five alternates either don't display the concept as well or aren't as high quality as the old image. New editing editor (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion
As far as I can tell, this article existed without a lead image from 2013 until November of 2025, when Dabmasterars added two now-deleted images. Dabmasterars has since been banned by the WMF. The current image is an aged-up and sexed-up version of Wikipe-tan. I would not have recognized the character without the caption. I don't believe the average reader will be familiar with Wikipe-tan or know how the image differs from the usual version. It is just decoration.
I do not believe that an image is necessary to explain the concept. Is there any objection to returning to the longstanding status of having no lead image? If not, why not? HappyBeachDreams (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply
There was a bigger discussion already about changing the lead image above, I genuinely think it is fine. Also, really, the character does not have to be recognizable. It just has to represent what the topic is (from WP:LEADIMAGE). I would personally disagree that an image is unnecessary. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he|talk to me, maybe? ) 21:15, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply
wikimedia.org.
.svg){kind=small}
Comment: replaced the thread title to be more be direct to what is being discussed. Juwan 🕊️🌈 15:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Done If it makes you feel any better, Wikipe-tan is DEFINITELY not a fetish thing. According to this video, turning different concepts into maids was just a popular trend on the Japanese internet around the time she was made. New editing editor (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
