Wikipedia talk:WikiProject WikiWorld

message: 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)

message: ...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:
* Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo could really use a cartoon to explain it better.  Words don't convey it - and for sure there is no photograph or diagram that would help...but a cartoon would be just the ticket!
* Shaken, not stirred - notably the section "Why shaken, not stirred?".  Dinner jackets are inherently funny.
* Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116...just 'because'.
* Molasses Gang - how could any red-blooded cartoonist possibly resist?
* Why did the chicken cross the road? -- The history section particularly.
SteveBaker 06:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently discovered the "buffalo" article, and I think it would be an awesome next comic : ) - jc37 17:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: That Boston molasses disaster is a classic, it's really cool.  --  Zanimum 14:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Oooh! And toss in a reference to Treacle mining! SteveBaker 03:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Topic suggestions 

message: : 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)
replies: text:  How does this template differ from Spoken Wikipedia?  --  Zanimum 22:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Additionally, I presume the main users of Spoken Articles are people with iPods and other MP3 players.  --  Zanimum 20:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Projects templates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Signpost]] and further thoughts

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Since when has quantity been key?  --  Zanimum 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wasn't lack of quantity the reason why the Klingon language version of Wikipedia was taken down? ;-) SteveBaker 14:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That, and unlike Ido, Esperanto, etc., the language is copyrighten.  --  Zanimum 20:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seperate "language"

message: 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)
thread_title:  image format 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  ...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)
thread_title: Extreme ironing doesn't meet [[WP:V]]

message: I have created a template by the name , 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)
replies: text: Template no longer even exists.  All of these (often misused) templates have been replaced with  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  WikiWorldImage template 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Issues to be sorted 

message: The vengeful frame me laugh, thanks and keep up the good work. -Ravedave (Adopt a State) 00:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiworld: Pet skunk 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'll try to take a crack at this if no one objects. ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This still needs to be done. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 07:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Documenting the exception to [[WP:SELF]] 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wow Great Work! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  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  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Templates

message: 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)
thread_title:  Original artwork cartoon in article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestion: 

message: *Colorless green ideas sleep furiously
Have fun : ) - jc37 08:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea, per request at top of page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GFDL licensing 

message: Wrap rage has great potential. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Half a year later, the project seems as good as dead... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Query 

message: Template: 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)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Illustrated Wikipedia}}]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comment on the WikiProject X proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject X is live!