Talk:OS-tan

I'm not sure the concept of OS-tan is notable enough for its own article, it might be better off in Moe anthropomorphism#Computers. Most of the reliable sources in the article cover products part of the marketing campaign for Windows 7 and onwards, and don't take their time to explain OS-tan. I've been trying to find sources about OS-tan but been met with the same, even in Japanese (an exception is the BBC article "Is your computer a girl?".) _🐾Nyakase^🐾 (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, OS-Tans took a different route from standard Moe anthropomorphism as it got adopted as a strategy of for marketing by Microsoft for a period of time for Microsoft Products like Windows, Bing and Internet Explorer. The BBC article helps to it to pass the barrier for WP:NOTE as well as articles from the The Verge, Akiba PC Hotline (in Japanese) and Wired. Unfortunately, prior to it being picked up by Microsoft in the late 2000s, there wouldn't be much of a paper trail due to it being at the time being a niche thing on the internet and bit rot would have removed most of the sources. I would argue that the reason why it's notable is because of what Microsoft did to the concept. Also, it's worth mentioning that Japanese Wikipedia has individual pages for many of the OS-tan characters, which supports the idea that this concept developed cultural weight beyond just a meme. As well as it should also be noted that the OS Tan article has been on Wikipedia since 2004 and has survived deletion attempts in 2006, 2007 and 2008 which was prior Microsoft used it for marketing which in my view is WP:CON on keeping it as its own article. Vista2003 (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Vista2003: I agree with you on the notability stemming from that campaign, but that demonstrates the issue with significant coverage of OS-tan. The Verge doesn't mention OS-tan, while Akiba PC Hotline describes Nanami as 萌えOSキャラ (lit. "moe OS character") with no further elaboration. The Wired article is about OS-tans but brief as a listicle. That leaves us with the BBC article.

It might seem odd for me to make this distinction, but that's because this article is OS-tan. Effectively it is two related concepts smushed together: the internet meme the article is named after, and the marketing campaign with a similar concept. I can see why it's presented this way, but again, I think it works better as examples of moe anthropomorphism rather than a standalone article. _🐾Nyakase^🐾 (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

This is where it feels like we're going against common sense. I think the definition of an OS-Tan is fairly well understood. Basically, an anime-style character representing an operating system. The term itself might not be used in every source, but the concept is clearly documented. Would someone familiar with OS-Tans recognize that the articles we're citing are talking about OS-Tans, even if the term isn’t used directly? I would say yes. Also it would make sense that Microsoft wouldn't use the term OS-Tan directly, they'd likely avoid mixing their marketing with community-originated terms. And mainstream media often describes this kind of character as just “anime mascots” or “moe characters” because that’s more accessible to the general public. But that doesn't change the fact that they're clearly part of the same phenomenon. But if you want a source that does say the word OSたん, here it is. Vista2003 (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Just to add on the sourcing from checking the Japanese internet. Gigazine directly uses the term OSたん in 2011 and ITMedia in 2022 basically saying that the Madobe characters were the creation of a group of PC parts related companies, MS later created its own characters for non-Windows products. It should be noted that this article surfaced with a Google search of OSたん even though the word is not used in the article. Vista2003 (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

No, most of the linked ones aren't talking about OS-tans (the concept/meme), they're talking about the marketing campaign. They're similar, but I don't think that can be used to justify OS-tan's notability. This is why I proposed the merger, as then we could mention both the meme and the campaign without having notability issues. I wonder if the marketing campaign is notable enough to have its own article though, it might be. _🐾Nyakase^🐾 (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Nyakase, regarding your latest comment, I want to clarify that the Japanese sources (specifically ITmedia News 2008 and Gigazine 2011) directly address the 'OS-tan' concept/meme. The 2008 ITmedia article explicitly uses the term 'OSたん' to describe fan-created characters on Pixiv, discussing the meme itself, this article is notable as it predates the Microsoft use of OS-Tans. The 2011 Gigazine article traces 'OSたん' to its Futaba Channel origins as a series of personifications, contrasting it with later official marketing. These pieces are from notable Japanese media outlets and therefore provide significant, independent coverage of the meme concept as required by WP:GNG. Vista2003 (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

To add on to this with an additional source, the OS-Tan concept was significate enough to receive a physical merchandise release in 2005 by 宙出版 (Ohzora Publishing) a major Japanese manga publisher. This release included a book with ISBN codes which can be viewed on the Amazon listing. Vista2003 (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The ITmedia article is a brief overview of art the writer saw on Pixiv while the Gigazine one has a passing mention. These can be sources for an article, but not significant coverage. The book being from a major publisher is interesting, but it sounds like it's not independent as involved artists made it?

We seem to be going in circles. I don't want this to get overly lengthy, so I am wondering if you think sending it to WP:3O is a good idea. _🐾Nyakase^🐾 (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your continued engagement, but I feel we are going in circles and perhaps misinterpreting what constitutes "significant coverage" for a topic like OS-tan, particularly given its origins. You've consistently argued that sources either don't use the term "OS-tan" or only cover Microsoft's marketing campaigns, or that any mentions are "brief" or "passing." I have provided several key Japanese sources that directly address these concerns:

1. ITmedia News (October 2008): This article is explicitly titled around "OS personification characters" and directly uses the tag "OSたん" in the context of fan-created works on Pixiv, well before the major Microsoft marketing push. To clarify its reliability, ITmedia Inc. is Japan's largest internet-only media company, boasting over 100 professional editorial journalists and 400 million monthly page views. This is not a "brief overview" by a casual writer; it's a professional media outlet covering an emerging internet phenomenon as a topic of interest.

2. Gigazine (April 2011): This article similarly references "OSたん" as a well-known series originating from Futaba Channel, using it as a direct point of comparison and context for Microsoft's first official moe personification campaign. This demonstrates that "OS-tan" was a recognised and distinct concept in the media, not merely an unmentioned background to marketing efforts.

These sources directly show reliable, independent coverage of the fan-originated OS-tan meme and concept, not just Microsoft's later marketing. For an internet phenomenon, dedicated discussion in leading tech news sites, even when contextualizing new developments, absolutely constitutes significant coverage.

Furthermore, you raised concerns about the independence of the 2005 OS-tan book. This book, with an ISBN, was published by 宙出版 (Ohzora Publishing), a major Japanese manga publisher. Publishers of this calibre do not typically invest in and distribute books about non-notable or insignificant topics, even if the original artists are involved. Its publication in 2005 further solidifies the pre-existing notability of the OS-tan concept before Microsoft's larger campaigns.

Finally, and crucially, this article has a long history on Wikipedia. It has survived multiple Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions in 2006, 2007, and 2008. The closing statement from the last AfD explicitly noted: "The result was Keep... there seems to be no majority consensus to delete. There is enough of an argument to keep the article... I can't see a fourth AFD attempt suddenly creating a deletion consensus." This reflects a clear, long-standing community consensus that OS-tan is notable enough for its own article, even prior to the Microsoft campaigns you focus on. When an article has repeatedly survived deletion discussions, the burden is strongly on those proposing deletion or merger to present new, compelling arguments that fundamentally change the notability landscape, not simply to re-interpret existing policy or dismiss previously accepted evidence.

Given the strong evidence presented, the clear coverage of the OS-tan meme separate from Microsoft's campaigns, and the historical consensus, I believe the article meets WP:GNG and should remain standalone. If you still disagree than I'm open to sending it to WP:3O to get a third opinion on this matter. Vista2003 (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I’ve taken a look at the sources and agree with Nyakase that OS-tans don’t stand alone as a sufficiently distinct topic. Almost every reliable reference treats these characters as part of broader “moe mascot” trends or marketing efforts, rather than as a discrete, independently notable meme. The few exceptions, like detailed fan wikis, aren’t considered independent or reliable sources under Wikipedia’s standards (correct me on this if I am wrong).

Regarding the Madobe characters it's also worth noting that Microsoft has never explicitly referred to them as “OS-tans,” so including them here under that label might be misleading.

As for the original characters, I recall the OS-tan fan book available on Archive.org stated there’s no established canon. Character designs and personalities vary widely depending on the artist. This lack of consistency makes it difficult to write a verifiable article, and increases the risk of original research or unverifiable content creeping in.

Merging this would be a good idea and allow us to retain the key information while placing it in a broader and more appropriate context. Sinclair-Speccy (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The OS-tan fanbook itself reinforces this lack of a unified canon. On the page following the front cover it roughtly states in Japanese in it (my translation may not be great): Although OS-tan has an original design, this book does not fix that setting, and users of "Futaba Channel" are free to interpret and create the character as they wish. In other words, "there will be as many OS-tans as there are Futaba users.” so the book treats OS-tans as a fluid, community-driven concept with no single authoritative version. I can see why the book was mentioned but that makes it extremely difficult to maintain a page without it becoming a compilation of varying fan interpretations, many of which are undocumented or unverifiable given that Futaba Channel does not archive their threads.

There has never been a proper formal wiki from Japan for OS-tans as far as I know from Futaba Channel either... Sinclair-Speccy (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it should be merged into Moe-anthropomorphism but it I fell as if it should be its own article because of how much is in the article and how different it is from the broader range of Moe anthropomorphism, anyways this is just my opinion, bye Lot'a citations, (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Merge – The article is surprisingly short if you remove the unsourced stuff, it can easily fit into Moe anthropomorphism- FaviFake (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, OS-tan seems to stand out from the average moe personified character in terms of her history, popularity, and influence.--Kainioaefa (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Merge: When your article only has, like, 5 paragraphs of sourced content, out of all of it, it probably shouldn’t be on Wikipedia. The article mostly serves as a list of OS-tan characters, and if it were to become a list, with the main information in Moe anthropomorphism#Computers, that’d be fine. Just, it shouldn’t be a standalone article. Tekoy9x, Techy9x but he forgot he set up 2FA (also the talk page) 19:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)