Wikipedia talk:WikiProject WikiWorld

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)

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)

How does this template differ from Spoken Wikipedia? -- Zanimum 22:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Since Radiant! asked on the admin noticeboard -

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • "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)

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)

What's the point of it being in the project space. No one except Wikipedians looks there. -- Zanimum 22:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

They can be used on talk pages or some other namespace, but not on the article itself. Martin 18:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Says who? That's just your opinion. pschemp | talk 23:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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-neigh 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)

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)

Idea

...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)