Template talk:Illustrated Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This internal Wikipedia page is within the scope of the Illustrated Wikipedia WikiProject, a collaborative effort to coordinate the use of cartoons specially created for Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This template was considered for deletion on 2006 November 21. The result of the discussion was to keep.

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 June 26. The result of the discussion was to keep.

Whats the point of this template? it adds links to unencyclopedic images, and adds a self reference from an article to a user page. Martin 10:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I greatly enjoy the WikiWorld series, my initial impression on discovering this template is that it should be moved to the See also section. It may even be more appropriate to move it to the top of an articles talk page. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've just removed it from shaving and facial hair, where it was being far from unobtrusive at the very top of the page. If it is to be on the actual article, rather than the talk page, it should be in the External links section. Compare how we do links to Wikiquote etc. — Matt Crypto 06:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It was at the top of talk pages. Quick history: Initially this project was putting the cartoons into the articles themselves; in every single instance this was reverted by random Wikipedians; basically no one seemed to like this at all. Later, little boxes like the Wiktionary box were put onto articles themselves. I controversially removed all of these, but replaced them with a far better talk page template, Template:WikiWorld, which gives immediate access to the cartoon. I don't know if {{WikiWorld}} is still being used also, but now the in-article boxes are being returned. Reverting to just doing this on the talk pages would be trivial. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›

My opinion is that it shouldn't be on the article page at all. Not only is the template a self reference, but the image is just a condensed version of text found already on the page. I think it's fine to be on the current issue as User:Phil Boswell stated when he added it to Hodag. gren グレン 07:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Recognizing that many people will say "well, WikiWorld is Foundation-approved, so it should be treated like Wiktionary, Commons, etc.", I would say the interim solution would be to have it appear in ExtLinks along with Commons and Wiktionary boxes, and be based on the same box code; I wouldn't have any particular objection to a thumbnail of the comic itself appearing as it does in {{WikiWorld}}, but the box should be no wider than, and not much taller than, those of Commons, etc. I suspect that ultimately this is going to come down to an RfC or a Village Pump debate, but "doing as the other WM projects do" is the course that is the second least likely to meet stiff resistance (keeping it on the talk page, as I tried to do, is of course the least likely). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it Foundation approved as encyclopedic? It's surely a nice community thing, but that's about it. Can you show what exactly the foundation has said about this? gren グレン 04:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that it has been; I'm not a Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiWorld defender; my interest in this is purely gnomish. You'll have to ask for that evidence over there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with deleting this template and using just {{WikiWorld}} on talkpages only. --Quiddity 03:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell them at Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiWorld, and watchlist the relevant templates for WP:TFD's you can participate in.

Just to add my voice to the masses: Just noticed this template on cashew. Please keep it to the talk page! There is no reason this belongs on the main article page! — Brian (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This desperately needs to be deleted

EVERY article on WP could be "within the scope" of this totally moribund project. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I provisionally rescind that comment; see above for alternative solution. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)