Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject WikiWorld

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have you stumbled across a Wikipedia article that would be an ideal candidate for a comic-strip interpretation? Please tell me about it. I'm on the lookout for surprising concepts and obscure references with humorous potential - as well as authoritative, highly-detailed articles on "mainstream" topics. --Greg Williams 20:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Topic suggestions

[edit]

...that Henry Burrell was the first person to successfully keep the Platypus in captivity, in a habitat of his own design that he called a platypusary?

I'd like to make the following suggestions:

SteveBaker 06:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently discovered the "buffalo" article, and I think it would be an awesome next comic : ) - jc37 17:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is some terrific stuff! I already had something underway for this week's comic, but I can't wait to tackle these articles. Should be fun. Thanks! --Greg Williams 12:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another couple of suggestions: Mind the gap or Boston molasses disaster. Slambo (Speak) 14:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Boston molasses disaster is a classic, it's really cool. -- Zanimum 14:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Combine Boston molasses disaster with Molasses Gang and pull something non-trivial from Molasses to make it sound encyclopeadic and you have something amazing! SteveBaker 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh! And toss in a reference to Treacle mining! SteveBaker 03:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might also have some fun with Kitsune (which is currently a featured article candidate). Raul654 04:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand that you would like to explore Wikipedia on your own for comic strip ideas but you may also want to look at WP:PINQ and its archives as they comprise several interesting and obscure facts about India as well as around the world. --Gurubrahma 07:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the great suggestions. I'm already working on a Molasses/Molasses Gang combo. (Now that WikiWorld has a home in The Wikipedia Signpost, I might not upload new comics for a brief while - until the Signpost has published several others from my existing "stockpile." But I'll keep drawing, and checking this list of suggestions.) --Greg Williams 14:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greg, one of my favorite articles is Apples and oranges. It seems like it would make a good WikiWorld comic someday.--ragesoss 21:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi Greg, I really enjoyed your Redshirt comic which appeared in the Signpost; I immediately went and looked at the others. It struck me, as a mathematician (and a visually inclined one), that an article like Möbius strip would be great fun for your strip. --C S (Talk) 16:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about Guyball??Spike iron 21:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed you mentioned this article for a WikiWorld comic. As someone who edits this article, may I recommend that you include information about the "Rules", origins, and how the game is played in real-life. Please ignore this if I'm doing something wrong by promoting this article, but I do have a major interest, as this was the very first Wikipedia article I ever created. ISD 20:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Radiant! asked on the admin noticeboard -

[edit]

Just thought I'd mention that I think this is a great idea, and very well executed thus far. Proto::type 15:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely (although who will draw them when Greg dies of exhaustion?). I don't think the template is any more clutter than the spoken wikipedia one. I do think that (as the project matures) we might consider having a unified "this article in other media" box (rather than a spoken box and an illustrated box). No, I can't think of any other media ("this article in collage form"), but then I didn't think of comics either, and it works very well. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about "this article in musical / show tune form" or "in flash animation form"? :) A few articles that could become good illustrated strips: The Bee Gees (as cartoon men with beards always look funny), Mel Blanc (fitting), Jimbo Wales (as I'm a suck-up), and Jaws (film). Proto::type 16:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proto also said on the noticeboard that he'd "like to see an illustrated version of WP:NOT"... I think that is an awesome idea! There are only a few dozen policy/guideline pages (as opposed to 1.5 million articles :) ) and recurring problems is that they're hard to read (yet too long to summarize in a one-liner), that some people tend to take policy too seriously, and that people use its letter rather than its spirit. This may be a weird idea, but to alleviate this, it would be awesome to have funny illustrations on some policy pages. (Radiant) 16:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have only one Greg, and few other wikipedians can draw (freehand) any better than those elephants in Malaysia. We should spend this scarce resource where it will be best used, and always in the article space. Hammerspace really benefited from the comic illustration, and Wikipedia's readers will benefit from it for years to come. Using Greg's talents to brighten up some Wikipedia internal argument page is a horrid waste. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "comic illustration" - exactly, we are writing an encyclopedia, since when is a comic illustration even remotely appropriate? I'm sure we all agree that link on the talk page, or even a whole new wiki for illustrated articles, but not on our main space. Martin 16:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is great work, but I don't think it's generally going to be appropriate for articles. I'd much prefer seeing this type of thing used in project space than article space. Friday (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of it being in the project space. No one except Wikipedians looks there. -- Zanimum 22:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be used. No one is saying that they will be used on every single wikipedia article, but I know there are some where they would be a great addition. pschemp | talk 17:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They can be used on talk pages or some other namespace, but not on the article itself. Martin 18:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? That's just your opinion. pschemp | talk 23:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it so important for Wikipedia to "jazz up" content with comic illustrations, Pschemp? Is the purpose or mission of Wikipedia to make people laugh about mundane subjects? Should the article about the 1970's be formatted with a psychedelic orange and pink background? Should the article about fireworks include a pop-up window (that the reader cannot close or ignore) with animated fireworks? Really, as mentioned above, no article about Millard Fillmore is complete without a GFDL song written in the Broadway musical style, is it? Martin is absolutely correct, and you, unfortunately are equally wrong -- Wikipedia article space is not the place to force cartoon content on users. (P.S. If one comic is seen as having a certain artistic "point of view", how are we going to make the article NPOV again -- get another talented artist to depict the content in a different style?) This is so silly, it's hard to believe that a debate is even taking place. The comics are funny, lighthearted, and drawn with talent. They belong in a project space, not article space. Period. --JossBuckle Swami 04:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great idea - wonderfully executed. Presenting these things on the front page would entice people to click through to articles they wouldn't otherwise have read - and attract more readership - especially kids and people who wouldn't normally even consider looking at an encyclopedia. It's no more frivolous and unencyclopeadic than the existing "Did you know" feature on the front page. I certainly wouldn't put these into article space because someone who has already decided they need to read the article is most unlikely to want the cartoon version. But in portals and on the front page - set up so they link back to the original article - they are just the thing we need to attract more readership. Just because we are an encyclopedia doesn't mean that EVERYTHING has to stuffy and unrelentingly academic. There is room for fun here.
The only problem I have with it is that the text is well-nigh impossible to edit because it's built into the image. Thus if someone discovers an error in one of the cartoons, we're stuck with no reasonable way to fix it - which is a highly non-Wikipedian thing. Could we at least choose some kind of image format where the images and the text were on separate layers - or even have a PNG with just the cartoon and another one with the just text on a transparent background that we render on top...or better still, provide some kind of software to add ordinary Wiki markup on top of the cartoons in 'cartoon font' ? This might be a challenging technical matter - but I think it's important. We need Wikilinks in the cartoon too.
Damn - I wish I could draw! SteveBaker 06:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are some fascinating concepts being discussed here. I especially like the idea of creating an editable framework for certain visual contributions: Let's call it WikiChalkboard. It might not be appropriate within the articles themselves (See, I'm paying attention), but maybe there could be a single, easily-accessible location where people could upload, rework, rewrite and collectively produce an organic visual interpretation of all things Wikipedia. (Introduce it in connection with the "Truthiness" or "Stephen Colbert" articles, and we might have a real destination page on our hands ...)
Regarding the WikiWorld comics, I've come to realize that I'm competely unconcerned about whether they are displayed or linked within the articles themselves. Honestly, it's not worth worrying about. That sort of usage merely tweaks perceptions about "encyclopedic integrity," while doing nothing to serve the original purpose of highlighting a few of the fascinating but little-known articles hidden within the vast Wikipedia universe. I mean, let's be realistic: 99.999% of casual Wikipedia users will NEVER accidentally stumble across "Hammerspace," "Facial hair" or any of the other articles I might choose to illustrate. On the other hand, as SteveBaker suggests, a front-page presence that serves the purpose of internal promotion would help to shine a light on some great little articles that otherwise would be largely undiscovered. I suspect it would encourage people to contribute to those articles, as well. And, importantly, the short shelf life of a promotional image would serve to clarify the point that these comics are merely "snapshots in time." Any factual errors that might crop up in the comics could be corrected in the articles themselves - where it really matters! (And, of course, I would gladly adjust the comics to fix any serious flaws.) If the comics are produced with a high standard of quality - which is always my goal - this promotional approach would help to protect the integrity of Wikipedia AND my own artistic intentions, without turning each individual cartoon into an endlessly-edited collaboration. Don't you think? --Greg Williams 17:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if they had a short shelf-life - eg: Just as a 'teaser' for off-beat articles that we stuck on the front page somewhere (much as we do with "Did you know...") - then I'd agree that these can be one-time-use cartoons - thrown away after a week or so - and it wouldn't matter a whole lot if they were discovered to be wrong in some minor way during the week - or if they became grossly wrong after being archived somewhere for a few years or if they were signed by the author. But if a use beyond that is construed then I do have a major problem with all of those things. Content that cannot be edited is content that'll become wildly out of date - and that doesn't belong anywhere near an encyclopedia. But like User:Greg Williams - I find the idea of a collaborative cartoon workspace to be very compelling. Perhaps we need a WikiToon alongside WikiBooks and WikiCommons? SteveBaker 17:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main "problem" with these is that they're self-contained; they can't be changed by anyone but the original illustrator (except maybe the text) without ruining the visual cohesion, so it's pretty much a matter of "We assigned Greg the pet skunk article; you'll have to illustrate another one." But that's true of the spoken word articles as well, and maybe we can figure out a navigational system for multiple comics on the same topic in which they are complementary rather than competing with one another. Another problem is that, while we could rely on many people's own honest assessment of their non-drawing talents to prevent poorly made comics, if we really opened this up so that "anyone can illustrate," it would turn into a total travesty very quickly. Maybe there should be a submission and review process, so that a six year old's well-meaning (or a sixteen year old's ill-meaning) George Washington stick figure doesn't end up linked to from that article just because it exists. Bad text can be copyedited, but a bad drawing can only be trashed and replaced.

That being said, I think these are brilliant. I'm a big fan of figuring out alternative ways to present and organize information, and these are also very well executed. We should resist the urge to cram these into the formal requirements of articles because those simply won't translate well to this format. The comics can be sourced in the same way that the spoken word articles are—by reference to a particular dated version of an article. They wouldn't constitute original research so long as the underlying article does not consist of it, and so long as it's clear what is intended to be factual and what is mere expression or example (I see no issue with these so far). I think the same would apply to POV; as long as it's clear what is informational, and as long as any of the comic licenses taken in the illustrations aren't disparaging or aggrandizing a relevant subject (like portraying all Confederates in the American Civil War as bucktoothed hillbillies, or portraying John Ashcroft with a halo being kissed on both cheeks by Jesus), POV shouldn't be too much of a problem. But that's what discussions are for anyway.

So the question is what to do with these? I don't believe they should be directly incorporated into articles, but a template link ala the spoken word articles may be appropriate, once again if there is a review process to filter out submissions (which the spoken word recordings should probably have too—how long would audio that consisted of nothing but profanity go unnoticed?). Maybe Illustrated Wikipedia should be a separate Wiki, but it should at least be part of the Wikimedia family. I've also thought of it being useful for the goals of Simple Wikipedia, but I wouldn't want to restrict it to that.

We need to be mindful of copyright issues with these; the facial hair comic depicts a copyrighted (and probably trademarked) character, and the Dr. Seuss comic makes use of his illustrative style in addition to depicting the fish from the Cat in the Hat, and elements of that character. I believe those two are totally safe as fair use (just make sure you tag them as such, and don't upload them to commons), but not all illustrations of all articles will be. We will really strain the limits of fair use if we start making comic adaptations of copyrighted works of fiction, which is what is likely to happen given the overly detailed, in-universe story recaps that typically crop up in fictional subject articles.

So good job, I'm looking forward to seeing more, and I'm definitely interested in contributing as well. Postdlf 10:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A process akin to WP:GA and WP:FA could be employed to sort good from bad - and we could arrange that the general public only easily see cartoons that pass muster. However, the inability to edit these things is a major issue for me. If there is any teeny-tiny thing we don't like - we have to reject the entire thing. Treating these as properly OpenSourced documents with the Wikipedia's editing abilities means that we have to have access to the "Source Code" of the image - which is to say the image with all of it's layers intact. I doubt that any accomplished digital artist would put all of the text, all of the graphics and the background on just one layer. If you used GIMP or Photoshop to do the picture editing, storing the native '.xcf' or '.psd' file here would allow people to come along and fix small errors in the text with relatively little trouble. In theory they might also try to redraw the cartoon characters and such too - but it would be tough to preserve the style of the original across multiple artists. However, we could still do things like changing the backdrop, adding and deleting small details. Without that ability, people are going to have to reject the entire cartoon because there is some teeny-tiny grammatical error in the text or some such. I agree that editing these things is harder than regular Wikitext - but we don't have to make it impossible (as it is with spoken text). The other distinction is that spoken text is relatively easy to replace completely and it's only generated by the relatively non-creative act of reading the words that have already been copy-edited, fact checked, etc. These cartoons will adapt and reduce the text - it would be easy for the artist to change a fact or distort something along the way. Storing images on Wikipedia in well thought out layers would go a long way to solving this problem. SteveBaker 13:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Layers would definitely help with that, but text in a flattened image is easy to alter in even the simplest of graphics editors. Postdlf 15:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not always - it depends on the style of the cartoon. With most of the cartoons presented so far, you are right - it's pretty easy. (Although not if you have to duplicate a hand-written font!) - But take a careful look at Image:Petskunkweb.JPG. The text flows over shaded backgrounds - and over the 'splat' in the righthand panel of the middle row. That's not so easy to fix...still possible - but definitely making it much harder. You can easily imagine other styles of cartooning where the text would flow over horribly complex backgrounds that would be really painful to edit. If the text were still a 'Text Layer' (at least in GIMP), you can still edit it just by erasing a few words and retyping them - you don't need any graphical/artistic skills at all. SteveBaker 16:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just spotted another problem. These cartoons are signed by the artist...that's a no-no - see: WP:OWN - especially the section entitled: "Don't sign what you don't own". SteveBaker 16:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OWN applies to text. Images follow a completely different set of rules. These images are licensed for use. Bastiq▼e demandez 17:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - the cartoons are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike free content license. The author is entitled to sign them, and attribution must be given. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Creative Commons Licenses. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are text - they are complete articles in their own right. The letter of the law is not the point here - it's the spirit of the policy. If someone signs the cartoon - then it's saying "This is my cartoon" - which it won't be the moment someone edits it. Should the cartoon accumulate dozens of little signatures over the years? No - the accreditation of the various authors, artists and editors should be retained in the history list just as it is for any other article. Should the cartoon be frozen in the exact artistic moment when it was drawn? No - because that is 100% contrary to the Wikipedia way of working - that would be unforgivably wrong. Suppose the OOPS decides they need to raise money in support of Skunk ownership? The statement in the cartoon that they are a non-profit group is now flat out wrong - and it must be changed - or we have to toss out an otherwise wonderful cartoon on a technicality. So it's got to be editable - which means it will be edited - which means that original author doesn't own it and therefore shouldn't sign it. Just because we happen to be storing the text in an image file (which actually I think we should strive to avoid) - doesn't change the idea behind WP:OWN. SteveBaker 17:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is to recognize these as sui generis, and develop new principles of how to deal with them rather than trying to fit them into the framework that works well for collaborative text articles. I've been viewing them as conceptually more akin to images or the spoken word audio files, as those are singular objects that are not composed of modular and easily transmutable elements like articles. Perhaps these should be viewed as "frozen," and a space constructed in which many "frozen" comics on a single topic can coexist, just as many images on the same subject can be grouped together within a commons category. We could then collaboratively decide which ones, if any, take prominence for a given topic, such that they can be "replaced" just as I could always record another audio version of an article that already has one, but we'd still keep the "replaced" ones accessible in some way. Postdlf 19:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to point out that Proto's suggestion of Jaws would very likely result in copyright problems. DS 17:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly, depending on how it's done. If it attempts to recap the film from an "in-universe" style such that it's just a comic adaptation, yes. If it talks about the film, illustrating its production and impact, then it would be just as safe as an article is that complies with WP:WAF. Postdlf 19:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. The Electric Company magazine in the 1980s ran a movie production issue, which included cartoon versions of Jaws breaking down, Darth Vader tripping as he enters in the first movie (an unused take). They didn't have credits in small text along the side, as far as I remember, and they likely didn't pay the copyright holders, as they were published by charitable organization Sesame Workshop. -- Zanimum 15:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this concept is a great idea! (The concept has been used to great effect in Ripley's Believe It or Not! and the Straight Dope [1]) I agree that they should not be for article space, but for portalspace (and I don't see a problem with project space either). One way to deal with outdated information is to have each one clearly state the date stamp of the source article, so that 10 years from now, someone can go back to that version of the article, and see exactly where the comic got it's information. Also, I don't understand the "throwaway" comments above. Why can't the comics be placed on a rotating basis (and archived if the comic becomes "out-dated")? As a member of WikiProject comics, I have to say, that I really like the idea of adding these to the comics portal : ) - jc37 17:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Projects templates

[edit]
Please do not use this projects template on articles, it is a self reference which is bad enough, but also the images are totally inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. Having the template, or links to the images on the talk page could be considered, but on the article is just not right at all. Martin 15:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does this template differ from Spoken Wikipedia? -- Zanimum 22:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because spoken articles are a valid tool for an encylopedia (e.g. for blind/partially sighted people), cartoons are not. Could you imagine the encyclopedia britannica illustrating its articles with cartoons? I think not. Martin 12:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Last I heard, this project didn't limit its content to items suitable for use by blind or partially sighted people, unless I was imagining that whole thing of having images in our articles. Oh, and could you imagine the Encyclopedia Britannica allowing the public to edit articles? I think not. Try opening your mind a bit. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I presume the main users of Spoken Articles are people with iPods and other MP3 players. -- Zanimum 20:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia

[edit]

This project belongs at wikia. Please take it there. Or change the copyright license to GFDL. This is the free as in freedom encyclopedia; not the free as in no charge encyclopedia. 4.250.198.224 18:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are licensed under Creative Commons - so they are sufficiently free to be acceptable to WP. That's really not the issue. SteveBaker 20:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So we are free to remove his name from them? WAS 4.250 20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer - Yes - with teeny-tiny caveats. (IANAL)
Longer answer: To quote from the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license under which these works are currently distributed:
"You are free:
  • to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
  • to make derivative works
  • to make commercial use of the work
Under the following conditions:
Attribution. You must give the original author credit.
Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a licence identical to this one.
  • For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the licence terms of this work.
  • Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder."
You can make derivative works (including - presumably - one without the signature) - but you are required to give the original author credit (but not necessarily within the image itself). So feel free to paint out the signature - just so long as the credit for the original work is clearly explained when you redistribute the file. This happens automatically when the file is stored in Wikipadia or WikiCommons - so as far as I can tell - go ahead, knock yourself out!
Please note that all Wikipedia text content (including the very words you are reading now) is currently licensed under GFDL which also requires you to provide attribution to the original author - so in this regard, Creative Commons and GFDL agree fairly closely.
SteveBaker 20:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the copyright holder agrees, then I withdraw all objections. But in reading what he wrote on the image wikipages about maintaining his name, I'm not sure the above coinsides with his intentions. He needs to clarify his intentions on those image pages where he identifies the conditions under which he permits copying (ie identifies the license but says keep his name). WAS 4.250 21:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what the author wants - it only matters what the license says. It has been shown on many occasions that authors do not always understand the consequences of the licenses they choose. Fortunately, that doesn't bother the licenses very much! There is a catch-22 situation here. If you pick a license that gives you control over your work into the future - then it won't be acceptable to Wikipedia - if you pick a license that is acceptable to Wikipedia then you give up full control of the work. People do find it awfully hard to give up on these things - which is terribly sad when you see the good that flows from giving work away with minimal restrictions. At any rate - the license says what the license says - we don't have to ask permission from Wikipedia authors every time we edit their work. SteveBaker 02:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the objection to the creator of the work having their name on it? -- Zanimum 14:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It goes contrary to the Wikipedia's: WP:OWN - especially the section entitled: "Don't sign what you don't own". Technically, these are just images and therefore circumvent the letter of that policy - but the spirit of it remains. SteveBaker 15:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Signpost and further thoughts

[edit]

How about producing these comic panels weekly for the Wikipedia Signpost? It'd make an excellent addition. I also feel that whereas they're not entirely appropriate for displaying in the mainspace, linking to them is of no real harm. They'd also be more at home in the Simple English Wikipedia. - hahnchen 04:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea has been suggested before. AFAIK, Greg is all in favour of whatever usage you can find for them. Signpost is welcome to reproduce the cartoons at whim. But that reaches a limited audience, maybe a couple thousand at most. Once a Signpost issue is archived, it's rarely looked at. Thus, I'm sure Greg would want more of an audience than just this. It's definitely a good start, but I doubt he'd continue with creating these comics, if that was solely a comprimise. Can't speak for him, but I think that's his view of things. -- Zanimum 14:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why Simple? They use cultural references the average foreigner learning English wouldn't get, and word that aren't at a level Simple English speakers can understand. And what? Cartoons aren't for sophisticated people? Political cartoons debuted back in a time when only the upper-class and the educated really read the news. -- Zanimum 14:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate "language"

[edit]

Perhaps (and this is pretty radical suggestion) the 'Cartoon Wikipedia' should be treates as Simple English WP is - as if it were a separate language...which in a sense, it is. Trouble is that we'd probably never have more than a few hundred articles - and they might mostly be on really 'off-the-wall' topics. I think it could work though. SteveBaker 20:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, because to be honest (while I support keeping the Basic English Wikipedia, it's failed because most people who speak English go to EN. People don't generally go to other language wikis. Additionally, you need at least 10 people to promise to be active contributors to create a new language--we're for now focusing on one cartoonist. -- Zanimum 14:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we end up with less than a dozen artists actively working on this, it's pretty worthless anyway because the rate of production would be far too low to have any noticable impact on anything. SteveBaker 15:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has quantity been key? -- Zanimum 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't lack of quantity the reason why the Klingon language version of Wikipedia was taken down? ;-) SteveBaker 14:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That, and unlike Ido, Esperanto, etc., the language is copyrighten. -- Zanimum 20:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image format

[edit]

I think this is great. My one question is shouldn't they be png's as they're a drawing? Bawolff 02:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme ironing doesn't meet WP:V

[edit]

I raised the issue of the topic choice at the talk page for this week's comic on signpost. I am disappointed that when there are so many interesting articles that one which is really self-promotion by one user is illustrated. User:Zanimum sought clarification:

What do you mean? Many different Wikipedians have edited this article. Just because Steam edited, does not mean he was by any means the main contributor. Also, Greg welcomes any suggestions for future comics.

To elaborate, while certainly a number of editors have contributed, the article on Extreme Ironing is basically not referenced to a standard that is acceptable, ie there are no reliable sources cited. From a a search I did, any reliable sources such as the BBC are merely feeding off the organisation itself and putting it in the bizarre category with some humorous illustrations. The article has now been tagged as a hoax. The article's sole illustration was a photo shopped image which thereby lacked credibility.

I suggest that as a minimum standard in future articles, chosen should be of at least "good article" standard, if not featured article standard, ie they have been peer reviewed. They should at the very least meet the wikipedia standard overifiability and no original research by citing reliable sources, which includes the caveat Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The article on extreme ironing does not meet this standard.

I think the comics idea is brilliant and the comics themselves are brilliant. I think they give recognition to the diversity of articles on the wikipedia which is excellent. I feel strongly though that we should expose only articles which are credible, not those believed to be a hoax by at least some editors and readers. --Golden Wattle [[User_talk:Golden Wattle|talk]] 20:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Ironing (silly though it sounds) is not a hoax - no question - it's absolutely real. Sure - we need some references. SteveBaker 00:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is with the lack of references of a suitable standard - without references it might as well be a hoax, who is to say - it doesn't meet WP:V or WP:NOR. --Golden Wattle talk 00:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...along with about a million other Wikipedia articles. But this isn't WP:AfD - it's WikiWorld comics - and none of those standards have to apply here. Bottom line - if Greg wants to draw a cartoon about an article, he does. No fuss, no muss, not committees, no policies - just a funny cartoon once in a while. Smile! Be happy! SteveBaker 17:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWorldImage template

[edit]

I have created a template by the name {{WikiWorldImage}}, that can be used to summarize the article the cartoon is being used for. Greg has agreed to use the template. Currently the template has hard-coded Greg's name, but if others editors also make cartoons, we can accommodate that too. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 15:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template no longer even exists. All of these (often misused) templates have been replaced with {{WikiWorld}} which is very simple, self-documenting and goes on talk, not article, pages like every other WikiProject and "news about this article" banner. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the commons template. Also this was not an issue to be resolved, but an information for the members of the WikiProject. But as I have noted a couple of discussion below, the images should have been uploaded to English Wikipedia in the first place. So, this issue is still unresolved. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues to be sorted

[edit]

I think that there are two issues that need to be sorted by the WikiProject. The first one is that the comics should be uploaded to English Wikipedia, and not commons. The reason is that they are used to illustrate English Wikipedia articles, so they cannot be required by any other Wikipedia/sister project. Furthermore, the illustrations contain substantial amount of text in English. The ideal way to deal with it would be to upload the complete cartoon at English Wikipedia, and cartoons without text (if available) to commons. This way other Wikipedias can use them to illustrate their own articles (which should be similar in content to their English counterparts). The second issue is that the ideal image format for cartoon illustrations is png, so it should be preferred over jpg. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are maps uploaded to Commons, that are only relevant to one language. How is this any different? As these comics are licensed under a Creative Commons license, we are free to translate them into Luxembourgish if we'd like. Do you know any other languages, and would be willing to select relevant passages for foreign language versions? -- Zanimum 15:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images that have text written on them should preferably be uploaded to the languages-specific Wikipedia, but have been historically uploaded to commons because of the following reasons. First of all, most such maps have English text on them. It is very difficult to edit them out without damaging the map. Thus local language Wikipedia had to choose between either to use nothing, or use the English language map. They chose the latter because something is better than nothing. Had free maps in local languages been available, they would have used them over the English language ones. Choice was English was a compromise because there was hardly another option. This should never be seen as a best practice. Similar problems exist with the cartoon illustration strip made by this WikiProject. Since they are raster images rather than vector graphics, editing them (esp. removing text) is extremely difficult. Since vector graphic illustrations is an infeasible option, I am not suggesting that. All I am asking is that the version of the comic illustration that contains graphic but not any text be uploaded to commons so that at least local language Wikipedias can use it to illustrate their own articles. If you want to see an example of best practice, please see this example of Kaziranga map. The author of the map had to make a map for the English Wikipedia. He made a map without any text and uploaded it to commons, and after adding English script to it, uploaded that version to English Wikipedia. Hope this clears your doubts. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 07:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major cleanup

[edit]
Resolved
 – No harm done; things are fine as-is.

As the consensus was (everywhere) to remove these comics from encyclopedia articles, as they are, well, not encyclopedic, I've cleaned up the project related templates (all merged now into {{WikiWorld}}, which goes on talk pages, not article pages, just like all other WikiProject and "news about this article" banners. Moved very mal-named WikiProject itself to Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiWorld where it belongs, since it is not actually about illustrating Wikipedia in general at all, it's abut WikiWorld comics. Improved {{WikiWorld}} so that it can show a thumbnail of the comic in question rather than make people dig around fruitlessly for it. Applied to {{WikiWorld}} to every single relevant article's talk page, with the sole exception of Albert Einstein, which already had way too many banners on it (and his appearance in a WikiWorld 'toon was very incidentall anyway). Updated the "Templates" and intro sections of the project homepage. TfD'd the obsolete templates (still in progress as of this writing). Cleaned up the use and frequent outright abuse of the old templates on all articles in which they appared. Effectively disabled the obsolete templates and soft redirected them to {{WikiWorld}}. I think that's about it. Only remaining this is to CfR Category:WikiProject Illustrated Wikipedia to Category:WikiProject WikiWorld, then twiddle {{WikiWorld}} to include <includeonly>[[Category:WikiProject WikiWorld]]</includeonly>, but I'll let someone else do that, since I have other things to do, and I've already spent about 7 hours on this WikiProject <grumble>which I don't really have any interest in other than cleaning up the messes it caused.</grumble> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very confused about the inactive/historical tagging on this project. Since there is one comic produced a week, the project has activity about once a week, but that does not make it inactive or historical. I think it's too bad you spent a lot of time on this, (to the point that you grumbled about it... why not work on things that interest you??) but you did not get consensus for your actions from the project participants (the comments at the template xfD are not from project participants, for instance) so I think it best that all of your changes be reverted and undone. The messes caused seem to be mostly from hasty and ill advised deletions, mergers, renames, taggings and the like, near as I can tell. ++Lar: t/c 16:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. There was indeed a certain amount of resistance initially, but when the project was explained to the complainants they certainly gave the impression of understanding the situation. If you had asked me, or any of the other participants, we could have told you about the arrangement with the Foundation and why the volume of work is so low. Sorry for all the bother to which you have put yourself, but I didn't realise that anything had changed until I came here this morning after The Signpost was published to do the weekly housekeeping and discovered everything had moved. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I upset anyone! Things are actually in a better state now than when I got here, and I don't see that I've broken anything. At that point, not one single article linked in a clear way to the cartoon that referenced it; at best they simply linked to the project, and did so in a way that went against WP:SELF. Every article of this sort had had its cartoon removed (by others, not me) from the article itself, leaving the project rather suddenly kind of floating in the void. It is obviously producing cartoons, but they weren't particularly visible any longer, except in the Signpost. They are now very visible on the articles' talk pages, just like Featured Article candidacy or other "big news" about the article. But, it's a wiki, so revert away if it doesn't do what you want it to. If there's Foundation policy floating around somewhere that says "ignore WP:SELF in this case and put the cartoons or references to the cartoons right in the articles", be my guest. Documenting the basis for doing so prominently at the project page would probably be a good idea, or another gnome will just come along and "clean it up". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a major issue I have is that there seems to be a certain amount of "I came in and fixed things" without making sure that was actually the right thing to do first... if you had come in and asked project members for their input first you could have saved everyone a lot of trouble, because it seems everything you did needs undoing, just about. Further... the more I look at this, the more I think a blanket statement of "it's wrong to put these images in articles" is incorrect. This is a WMF project, and the images DO belong in articlespace, and therefore your trying to eliminate one of the templates is misguided, and needs to be undone, and your removal of the images from articles is misguided, and needs to be undone as well. So I find myself in major disagreement with "Things are actually in a better state now than when I got here", which comes off as a bit self righteous and condescending (as does your statement on the membership list)... and that's just my view as an outside observer. ++Lar: t/c 13:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Note: It was two templates. :-/]
Whoa! I did not, ever, once, period, remove WikiWorld images from any articles. That was long since done, by various and sundry random editors at those numerous articles (and I find it highly notable that it happened at every single article in question). Wasn't there, had nothing to do with it.
I did go with the general guiding WP:SELF principle, which I've never seen so categorically dismissed (NB: I have not yet read the new topic below on this very subject, so I could be saying something stupid here), and ergo undid WikiProject tagging inside articles, and moved it all to the talk pages, just like Featured Article notifications, et al., and believe I made major improvements to {{WikiWorld}} in the process (which I note are now being imported into one of the other templates, <ahem>.
Next, the whole sanctioned-and-official-WMF-project angle is utterly invisible to everyone but you insiders (i.e. fix that problem). If I'd known (i.e. if less than a full day's research would have told me) that there was even a hint of that I would never have even set foot in this area; honest. It simply was not in evidence. As to the rest, yes, I screwed up, as already admitted in usertalk.
The core story is that I got livid over seeing WikiProject tags inside an article, and went on a "militant gnome" cleanup spree. I totally acknowledge that I stepped on toes blindly in the process. All I'm asking is that you assume good faith on my part. I truly thought I was performing a much-needed cleanup operation.
A near-week later, I still think I actually did so. The WikiProject now has a name that does not confuse the living hoo-haw out of people (see the "oppose, er no, support" !vote on the first TfD - some people thought, by its name alone, that "Illustrated Wikipedia" meant "providing encyclopedic image support to the article texts"; were convinced of this even). The cartoons themselves are now not only more accessible than before, they are also available on more relevant articles; many more, because I broadened the interpretation beyond "excerpted" (maybe there should be variant version of {{WikiWorld}} for directly excerpted, too; perhaps that deserves its own form of prestige?). The project's overlapping-function template mess (some of which was just way off, like the repurposing of the generic WikiProject template, which includes language implying that the article in question is subject to the edting assessment and rating purview of the WikiProject in question!) got cleaned up, and I do stand by the terminology "cleaned up" at least in that case. {{WikiWorld}} serves a real function and actively promotes WikiWorld; the old {{WikiProject Illustrated Wikipedia}} (not to mention the original {{WikiWorld}}) did not (very effectively, anyway), and as noted, caused other problems (or issues that I submit could rationally and nonbadfaithedly, to make up a word, be perceived as generating problems).
Lastly, this doesn't have anything to do with me, like SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) is der überWikipedian or any such thing. I moved some stuff around, TfD'd two items, worked like mad on the third to make it better than ever, and posted notes detailing what I'd done and why.
SO: Yes, I accidentally (incidentally?) squished some toes in my approach, but I think that most if not all of the changes I made are, in retrospect, actually good ones. And, BTW, in case this isn't clear, I think the cartoons are completely fantastic. I've never meant any harm to this project; quite the opposite (which is why I spent so long re-doing {{WikiWorld}} to support inlining the cartoons as "get it right now!" clickables instead of making people hunt for them in the bowels of a confusingly-named WikiProject's documentation.) At this point, I just ask for a step-back-and-reexamine assessment. If after such assessment I still come off as having screwed up then, OK, I screwed up.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<ping> If anyone's still upset with me please say so. If the futzing I did has actually messed anything up, I'll be happy to undo it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marking this topic "Resolved" after months of dead silence. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New direction

[edit]
Resolved
 – Proposal rescinded by proponent

I'd like to supportively echo Radiant's idea buried way up above, of using such cartoons to illustrate some WP policy pages. Might actually give this project and the cartoonist in the background something to do. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I agree with this idea, not in the slightest. The cartoonist and the WikiMedia Foundation are working directly together, and the article illustrations are awesome. To suggest that you somehow have a better idea of what this cartoonist ought to be volunteering to do than the Foundation strikes me as, at best, dubious. I think the best thing to do is to stop trying to mess with this project and let it keep doing the great work it has been doing. Further I'd suggest that the template changes you made be carefully reviewed by actual project participants, and potentially reverted if they go against the spirit of the project in any way, or hinder the cartoonist or the editors working the project in any way. Because, frankly, I find "Might actually give this project and the cartoonist in the background something to do" amazingly condescending. I can't imagine that is what you actually intended but that's how it reads to me. ++Lar: t/c 14:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. While someone making comics of policy might be good, Greg's talents and limited time is better devoted to these comics, which can be used as external marketing if run as a newspaper feature. -- Zanimum 15:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the cartoonist with so much time on his hands (apparently), I suppose I should weigh in on this discussion. I definitely appreciate the time and attention paid to the WikiWorld comics by various individuals: suggesting topics for future comics, developing templates, discussing the proper location and format for those templates, attempting to find other acceptable ways to tell people that the comics exist, etc. Believe it or not, I even appreciate the efforts of people who have conveyed their displeasure with the comics, or with the various approaches that have been tried in order to tell people about them; 99% of the comments that I've seen have been well-intentioned and heartfelt. Can't complain about that.
I do, indeed, have limited time to devote to the WikiWorld project - and I would prefer to spend that limited time producing the comics, not endlessly debating peripheral issues. I've tried to respond to requests and suggestions, and I'll continue to do so. But I can't anticipate every new issue that might arise. The comics are meant to serve a promotional purpose, to highlight some of the content that makes Wikipedia so different from conventional encyclopedias - and to provide a little diversion. As long as the folks at the Wikimedia Foundation are OK with what I'm doing, I'll keep doing it. Thanks. --Greg Williams 21:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was just an idea. I didn't mean to imply "the cartoonist has nothing to do", but rather that the project might be twice as active if it WP policy pages were also being done up as cartoons. I didn't think through that idea very much since of course, yes, it would mean doing twice as many cartoons, and Greg likely has other things to do. D'oh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that for it to be a successful comic - it has to be funny - which really requires something more like Red shirt than some tedious diatribe about how and why you have to say 60 [[mile]] (100 [[km]]) instead of "60 miles". I don't think anyone apart from our lone cartoonist can possibly pick the topics. If a funny image doesn't somehow pop into his head - there won't be much of a cartoon. The best plan here is to let Greg do precisely what he does right now - and let us decide how to showcase them to the best advantage. The idea of publishing them in a newspaper is a great way to pull people to our site ("Hey! It's not all about Japanese railway stations and Latvian prime ministers! They have fun stuff too!"). SteveBaker 00:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all counts. If these actually appear in newspapers, I think that would be awesome. All that said, WP internal policy stuff can be funny (see WP:MASTODON for example.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiworld: Pet skunk

[edit]

The vengeful frame me laugh, thanks and keep up the good work. -Ravedave (Adopt a State) 00:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Documenting the exception to WP:SELF

[edit]

This seems a needful thing to do so that future "fixit" attempts can be headed off sooner with less wasted effort. Also a note about project frequency (that it's not moribund if it gets activity once a week... there's a new cartoon once a week so therefore that's the activity frequency) might be good. ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely would have warned me off, on both levels. Again (despite that I can be defensive, as above) I realize I've caused at least some confusion, consternation and irritation, which was not my actual intent. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to take a crack at this if no one objects. ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By all means! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This still needs to be done. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{Illustrated Wikipedia}} has been added to WP:SELF, and a note about frequency of activity added to the project page. ++Lar: t/c 01:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License concern

[edit]

This is a great project, but I'm concerned about the choice of license for the images. My thinking is:

  • The images contain text taken directly from Wikipedia articles
  • Wikipedia articles are licensed under the GFDL
  • Derivatives of GFDL works must also be licensed under the GFDL
  • Thus, the WikiWorld comics must carry GFDL licenses.

Does this make sense, or am I missing something? Thanks -SCEhardT 16:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eep, licence issues. *makes sign of warding* I think there's an argument that GFDL and "CC-by-sa" are essentially compatible, so this may not be an issue as such. But if they really are compatible, maybe it would be simpler and clearer to switch to using GFDL explicitly. (Also, one may (or may not, IANAL) be able to argue that they're not derivative works as such, but are making fair use of the contents of those articles, and thus don't have to conform to those terms.) Alai 04:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - a fair use claim is entirely reasonable in this case - but really, the licenses are pretty compatible. To make a fuss over this would be pointless Wikilawyering. SteveBaker 04:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use is not allowed on the Commons and is something we are trying to avoid here at the English Wikipedia. -SCEhardT 16:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a significant distinction between arguing fair use of a GFDL'd source, so as not to apply GFDL to the result, but some other allowable licence, so the issue of reuse in a different context becomes simply whether the GFDL applies, or the other licence does; vs. fair use of a source with commercial or otherwise more tightly restricted rights, where reuse in another context might not be possible at all. But that's moot if a) the two are successfully argued (or pro temps, assumed without complaint) to be compatible, or b) the cartoonist resolves the issue by switching over. There's only a problem, as I understand it, if: there's an actual difference between the two; the author insists on that distinction; and the GFDL'd text can't be made use of on a fair use basis. Alai 01:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this right. A freely licensed cartoon can't be put into commons because it quotes a freely license article under fair use? Yep - this is pointless Wikilawyering alright. Now if only we had a cartoonist somewhere around who could satirize the shit out of this ridiculous debate...please people - there are much better and more constructive things you could be doing with your time...go find an article to clean up or something. SteveBaker 04:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this too. CC-BY and GFDL are compatible, but the other way around - you can release modifications of a CC-BY work under GFDL, but you can't release modifications of a GFDL work under CC-BY. A test about fair use could be this: would Greg be able to make same comics using texts from a non-free encyclopedia in the same way? If yes, then he can licence the comics any way he pleases, but if no, the comics would have to be GFDL too. Nikola 10:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your premise - but let's run with it anyway. Yes - of course he could quote a non-free encyclopedia in the same way. Look at the 'four criteria' from Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Law: for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research (WikiWorld is probably best represented as "comment"). We must consider:
  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; - WikiWorld is non-commercial and educational - no problem.
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work; - It's an encyclopedia - it's meant to be a source of facts. The facts themselves are not copyrighted, so this isn't like playing someone elses music or quoting a poem.
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; - One or two sentences from an entire encyclopedia! No problem there!
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. - No problem. How many people will not buy the encyclopedia because the WikiWorld comic is a useful replacement?
So yeah - he could have quoted a non-free encyclopedia in the same way. But that doesn't matter, he's quoting a free encyclopedia - inside that very same free encyclopedia - and giving the results away for free! What's to bitch about? PLEASE find something more useful to do than WikiLawyering about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! SteveBaker 12:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Webcomics

[edit]

I think this project definitely falls under WikiProject Webcomics, what do you guys think? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem appropriate to list this W'project as a "child" project or at least a "related" one, by editing the appropriate sections of both projects' pages. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)q[reply]

Wow Great Work!

[edit]

I just found a few of the Artworks! They are really great! I specially like the "Redshirt" One and the "Buttered cat" One :D Very Well done! --Stefan-Xp 07:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

[edit]

Should these really be placed on content pages? I don't think it's particularly encyclopedic to do so - maybe on talk pages but content pages is kind of pushing it. Richard001 06:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My take is "No". There seems to be an uneasy consensus after many reversions and template changes that if Template:Illustrated Wikipedia is put into the "See also" or "External links" section, like Wiktionary, Wikisource, etc., templates on which {{Illustrated Wikipedia}} was based, then that might be OK. I've even restored it in this form to several articles from which it was deleted. I've personally advocated for some time that only the Template:WikiWorld banner template should be used, on article's talk pages, but I'm not certain that this view has sufficient traction yet. On the other hand, virtually every attempt to add {{Illustrated Wikipedia}} more prominently, e.g. at the top of an article, has been reverted by one editor or another as non-encyclopedic. There appears to be a broad general consensus that no matter how entertaining these comics are that they are at most appropriate in the "See also" or "External links" sections, and perhaps only appropriate on talk pages. I prefer the latter interpretation, but do not assert it. And just for the record, I think the comics are fantastic, and want to see more of them. It's only a matter of where to "advertise" them, really. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I try each week, when The Signpost is released, to add {{Illustrated Wikipedia}} and {{WikiWorld}} to the relevant articles and their associated talk-pages respectively. I put {{Illustrated Wikipedia}} near the top of the article for the current issue, and move the tags for the previous week to the bottom: in each case I try to place them carefully so they don't scrag the formatting…in some cases this can be quite tricky. I would have to check, but I think I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times where someone has reverted my additions. In most cases, simply explaining that the WikiProject is officially sanctioned by the Foundation has been sufficient, but there are still people who appear repelled by the whole idea. If people are feeling really strongly about it, maybe we could add class="selfreference" to {{Illustrated Wikipedia}}, as per {{selfref}}? In fact, I'll do that right now… HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they look great and certainly provide a unique offering to our sometimes drab pages. Cary Bass demandez 14:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original artwork cartoon in article

[edit]

The discussion about the cartoon over at Talk:Bring radical might be of interest, since it rehashes some of the points that were made when Wikiworld was put into articles. nadav (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idea?

[edit]

I've noticed the following banner on numerous talk pages:

I was wondering if something similar could be done that would incorporate all of the WikiWorld comics. In other words, every time I view the page I may see a different comic.

Any thoughts? - jc37 23:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the code for it:

[[Image:{{#switch:{{#expr:{{NUMBEROFEDITS:R}} mod 35}} |0=Ironing comic |1=Clabbers comic |2=Hyperthymesia cartoon.jpg |3=Truthiness comic.jpg |4=Apples and oranges.jpg |5=Facial Hair comic.jpg |6=Thagomizer comic.jpg |7=Molasses comic.jpg |8=Dr seuss cartoon.jpg |9=Redshirt comic.jpg |10=Hammerspaceweb.jpg |11=Tony-clifton-web-rev.jpg |12=Petskunkweb.jpg |13=Rutles_comic.jpg |14=Cartoon physics comic.jpg |15=Wilhelm comic.jpg |16=Buffalo buffalo WikiWorld.png |17=Current comic.jpg |18=Fake Shemp comic.jpg |19=Hodag comic.jpg |20=Buttered cat comic.jpg |21=Calvin wikiworld.jpg |22=Friday wikiworld comic.jpg |23=Ubbi dubbi comic.jpg |24=Disruptive WikiWorld.jpg |25=Five second wikiworld.jpg |26=Hodgman wikiworld.jpg |27=Mike wikiworld.jpg |28=TMBG wikiworld.jpg |29=Cashew wikiworld.png |30=Ann Coulter wikiworld.jpg |31=Domination wikiworld.png |32=Bean wikiworld.png |33=Terry Gross WikiWorld.png |34=2000s WikiWorld.png }}]]

–Pomte 22:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! : )
Is there a way to do it where the list of images is on a separate page somewhere, so that only that page needs to be updated, so that those of us who have the code don't have to update the code for every new WikiWorld comic? - jc37 23:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimarkup isn't advanced enough for that. All you have to do is
  1. Add |number=image location as a new line before the last line, in the tradition of all the lines above.
  2. Increase the number on line 1 by one (35 to 36).
By the way, I have not created a template with this code. I suggest you copy what you see in the edit window, so it looks neat and these instructions make sense. –Pomte 02:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I had to hope : )
And though I presumed the rest, thank you for instructions for everyone else : )
I was thinking... Let's say I make 35 sub-pages of this WikiProject, naming each /1 through /35. Then I transclude the corresponding image on each page. Can WikiMarkup transclude one of these randomly? - jc37 08:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but do you really want to do all that grunt work? What's the benefit there? –Pomte 21:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Preventing the need for changing the code on any and all userpages which use the code. (Seemingly auto-updating to the end user.) Plus, consider how lengthy the code will become when the comics number in the hundreds... So the goal is to have a single set of infomation which is accessed by the rest, but not directly duplicated (and not needing constant updating). As someone who has edited hundreds of userboxes, I really see the value in this. - jc37 10:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion:

[edit]

You should do a Wikiworld comic strip on a year. You could pick one at random, would give a multitude of things to draw and would bring some light to the seldom linked to year articles... Spawn Man 06:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idea, per request at top of page

[edit]

Have fun : ) - jc37 08:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, but where's the RSS feed?

[edit]

It appears that the only way to actually subscribe to the comics is on myspace, and I'd rather not create a myspace account. Since these comics are free, someone should set up a free RSS feed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.182.70 (talk) 19:42, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

GFDL licensing

[edit]

I think we should be better about explicitly crediting the authors of the text used in these comics - it's required by our license, after all!! Calliopejen1 15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need a hand?

[edit]

I've just noticed that, to quote the signpost, "WikiWorld has ceased its weekly schedule" and was wondering if you would like any help in making comics. Admittedly, I could never equal your unique caricaturesque style, but am quite accomplished at drawing with both a pencil and a mouse myself. I could never keep a weekly rate (heck, I don't even know if I could keep a triweekly rate), but if there's two of us, we could have a sort of alternating output.

I don't think we could bring the comic back to being weekly, but it could come out more, and if ever both of us have a comic ready for the same week, yours would go before mine. I don't know if you would like to review my article choice or the comics I make themselves before they're published in The Signpost (nor indeed do I currently know how you manage to have them published in The Signpost).

The articles I'll take for making comics will mostly (if not totally) come from the suggestions currently on the WikiProject's talk page. I already have the excepted text for "Fourth wall" and "Time flies like an arrow" and ideas on what to draw for them; as well as an idea of what to draw for "sleepwalking", ontological paradox, and "Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116", though I wouldn't want to start on any of them before you give me the go-ahead.

Let me know what you think
--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all necessary to ask permission to do this. It's in the nature of Wikipedia that anyone can contribute - although there is obviously no guarantee that the editors of the Signpost would consider your work good enough to publish it there - and no guarantee that someone wouldn't come along and delete or edit your new content. However, I doubt any of those things would be a practical problem and it would be refreshing to see more people contributing. So go for it! "Time flies like an arrow" seems like a wonderful place to start. SteveBaker (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so much requesting permission to draw a comic, nor permission to draw it using this project's good name, as much as guidance on how to get it accepted; particularly how to get it accepted in the signpost. And Greg, indisputably, has experience there.
--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed your note until now. I agree with Steve, that it would be great to see more people contributing unique creative work related to Wikipedia: cartoons, caricatures, serious illustrations or graphics, photographs, or whatever. As for the WikiWorld project itself, it's not really my call to open that up to other contributors - since the use of Wikipedia's name and logo had to be approved by the Wikimedia Foundation. Luckily, they liked my work well enough to give me the go-ahead. Likewise for the inclusion of the comics in The Wikipedia Signpost, which would be totally at the discretion of the Signpost's editor(s).

If you'd like to develop your own separate project (unconnected to WikiWorld), more power to you. Or, if you're mainly interested in continuing with the established WikiWorld template, I'd be happy to take a look at your stuff - and to speak up on your behalf, if I think it would be a good fit. Either way, I'd be happy to give you my thoughts after I've had a chance to see your work. Why don't you e-mail a couple of things to wikiworldcomic@yahoo.com and we can discuss the best way to proceed. (Or, feel free to approach the Wikimedia Foundation and the Signpost on your own, if you like.)

Thanks for your interest! --Greg Williams (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Greg_Williams"

Thank you so much for your reply! I guess it is now my turn to appologize. I was so sure I'd have the time during spring break to draw something up, but now it seems I'll have to put it off a little longer. I guess I've only been able to show why you had to stop, haven't I? :-)
--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion

[edit]

Wrap rage has great potential. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mention

[edit]

Just a heads up, this project was mentioned recently on the WMF Blog. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Wikiworld

[edit]

There are translationsof these comics on the Hebrew Wikipedia? Should we feature them here in the Signpost?

A Query

[edit]

Is the WikiProject WikiWorld still alive? There hasn't been any comic nor much discussion for a while. Maybe we can setup a submission steps to have comics considered for inclusion? Just a thought. ~ Feureau E.S.P. (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Half a year later, the project seems as good as dead... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Illustrated Wikipedia

[edit]

Template:Illustrated Wikipedia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cenarium Talk 22:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

[edit]

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_WikiWorld&oldid=1238867573"