This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
R/place article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
R/place has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
On 10 April 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Place (Reddit) to r/place. The result of the discussion was moved. |
This article was listed in 2020 following a short review. That year, I raised the concern that this article does not include any image of or link to the final version of Place, despite the fact that such an image would presumably be justified under WP:NFCC. MrMeAndMrMe raised concern that the GA status was unwarranted, after which the thread died. I recently returned to this article, given the media coverage of Place's creator, Josh Wardle (of Wordle fame). Wardle is not mentioned at all, which gives me concern that criterion 3 ("broad in its coverage") was not met. Given the concerns from multiple angles and editors, I feel it is appropriate for the community to give this a more comprehensive reassessment. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 19:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
following a short reviewis unnecessarily misleading about the original GANR (which I did) - length doesn't dictate quality - and so the descriptor seems to only be included to encourage people coming here to doubt the validity of the original review, i.e. agree if only with your conclusion, even though the rest of your comment seems to allude that the article just needs updating. Kingsif ( talk) 22:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
doesn't classify for GA anymore as per recent events! Assuming you are referring to the fact r/place has returned in 2022, again, this is a matter of updating. If the update would be too great to just wave through, then actual comments in the vein of an actual GAR review should be left so that someone can update the article with GA project guidance - a user simply asserting "this can't be GA" is completely pointless (both for improving and for trying to defend a removal of status). You can help improve the article by either editing it or providing actionable comments for someone to update it, if you are actually interested. Kingsif ( talk) 23:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Current version has a lot of unreliable sources and unsourced statements. The article needs a lot of rework for the 2022 sections to be kept as GA. Skyshifter talk 12:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Delist, this article does not met the stability and comprehensive criteria. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 15:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
How is this still a good article? I took a broad look at it and its prose is quite poor. The sources could also be a subject of debate, as sites like Mashable are used extensively, and Reddit itself is used as a source in some places. I don't know where non-online news sources for the 2022 section can be found, but I think lots of work is needed to replace the existing sources and expand the article so it covers the entire subject. Little information is included beyond what actually happened during the events. I don't think this article offers very much to be considered "good" in its present state CollectiveSolidarity ( talk) 01:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
How is this still a good article?- literally nobody has bothered to reassess it. Just complaining that you don't think it should be GA is not a way to delist something. Also, Featured Topics generally have around 30 days to update if there is something new to be covered, so just saying (again, just saying rather than reviewing) that the 2022 version is not yet covered enough isn't a GAR. Kingsif ( talk) 13:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Just had a look and although still quite a lot of prose problems, the unreliable source issue has been mostly solved except for what seems like one Mashable article still being referenced. Sorry but cannot work on this article for the next few days. Jeuno ( talk) ( contribs) 08:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep, I cleaned up the sources and the prose seems generally good now. I would also prefer to keep only one of the color palettes to reduce image bloating, but the article seems to be in decent shape now CollectiveSolidarity ( talk) 16:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep Although the lead can be better and its sourced content should be moved at the overview section. I think overall is fine. OnlyFixingProse ( talk) 09:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep What people seem to forget is the difference between GA and FA. This article passes the Good Article Criteria. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Do you think the resolution of the final images of r/place are sufficient enough for commentary without destroying smaller art pieces in the image, but comply with WP:NFCC and WP:IMAGERES?
This can be a difficult situation because most of them contains derivative work of another non-free content. But if we reduce it further, it would destroy smaller art pieces that are probably the subject of commentary. However, the pixel art derivative works shows the dedication and effort done by multiple Reddit communities by over 6 million people (in 2022 version), which is the subject of sourced critical commentary.
Do you think the image should be resized slightly larger, or smaller? An alternative is to reduce larger derivative work pieces, while leaving other unchanged, but this can be difficult, and may be detrimental for readers.
Also for the 2022 version, should we use the version right before the white pixels start? I've originally uploaded with this version, but someone overwrote with different (larger) version, and I downsized it per policy. -- Stylez995 ( talk) 23:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC) (Edit: fixed mistake. -- Stylez995 ( talk) 23:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC))
{{
RetouchedPicture}}
template can be used to notify user about the image has been modified. --
Stylez995 (
talk) 17:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add this to the internet culture section of the 2022 r/place:
"Additionally, very many images of the crewmate from the game Among Us appeared all over the canvas, with a Reddit user using a script to check the entire canvas and counted 3,572 crewmates. [1] [2]
References
172.112.210.32 ( talk) 02:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. That seems to be covered with References to popular culture, Internet memes and politics were commonly visibleScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 11:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I've got a couple sources here :
1
2
3
4
3 of them refer to the events of r/place as "The Great Pixel War", while the other insists on how r/place was like a war. My proposition, henceforth, would be to put forward the following motion : That the introduction refers to the fact that the events that took place in r/place are also known as the Great Pixel War. We know, though, that there has been two editions of r/place so far, 2017 and 2022, so it would be safe to say that they can also be referred to as "The Great Pixel Wars, purely through natural deduction. So here I offer what I believe are the two possibilities relating to my proposition. I put in bold what would be the possible new addition.
1-r/place, also known as the Great Pixel War, was a collaborative project and social experiment hosted on.....
2-r/place, also known as the Great Pixel Wars, was a collaborative project and social experiment hosted on.....
The specific words are of course subject to change depending on how you feel. Maybe the term "colloquially" is to be considered as a strong replacement.
That's it. Thank you for your time, and merry editing.
Witcher of Izalith (
talk) 04:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
The usefulness of a reliable source doesn't stop at the language it's written in.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
R/place article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
R/place has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
On 10 April 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Place (Reddit) to r/place. The result of the discussion was moved. |
This article was listed in 2020 following a short review. That year, I raised the concern that this article does not include any image of or link to the final version of Place, despite the fact that such an image would presumably be justified under WP:NFCC. MrMeAndMrMe raised concern that the GA status was unwarranted, after which the thread died. I recently returned to this article, given the media coverage of Place's creator, Josh Wardle (of Wordle fame). Wardle is not mentioned at all, which gives me concern that criterion 3 ("broad in its coverage") was not met. Given the concerns from multiple angles and editors, I feel it is appropriate for the community to give this a more comprehensive reassessment. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 19:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
following a short reviewis unnecessarily misleading about the original GANR (which I did) - length doesn't dictate quality - and so the descriptor seems to only be included to encourage people coming here to doubt the validity of the original review, i.e. agree if only with your conclusion, even though the rest of your comment seems to allude that the article just needs updating. Kingsif ( talk) 22:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
doesn't classify for GA anymore as per recent events! Assuming you are referring to the fact r/place has returned in 2022, again, this is a matter of updating. If the update would be too great to just wave through, then actual comments in the vein of an actual GAR review should be left so that someone can update the article with GA project guidance - a user simply asserting "this can't be GA" is completely pointless (both for improving and for trying to defend a removal of status). You can help improve the article by either editing it or providing actionable comments for someone to update it, if you are actually interested. Kingsif ( talk) 23:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Current version has a lot of unreliable sources and unsourced statements. The article needs a lot of rework for the 2022 sections to be kept as GA. Skyshifter talk 12:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Delist, this article does not met the stability and comprehensive criteria. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 15:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
How is this still a good article? I took a broad look at it and its prose is quite poor. The sources could also be a subject of debate, as sites like Mashable are used extensively, and Reddit itself is used as a source in some places. I don't know where non-online news sources for the 2022 section can be found, but I think lots of work is needed to replace the existing sources and expand the article so it covers the entire subject. Little information is included beyond what actually happened during the events. I don't think this article offers very much to be considered "good" in its present state CollectiveSolidarity ( talk) 01:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
How is this still a good article?- literally nobody has bothered to reassess it. Just complaining that you don't think it should be GA is not a way to delist something. Also, Featured Topics generally have around 30 days to update if there is something new to be covered, so just saying (again, just saying rather than reviewing) that the 2022 version is not yet covered enough isn't a GAR. Kingsif ( talk) 13:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Just had a look and although still quite a lot of prose problems, the unreliable source issue has been mostly solved except for what seems like one Mashable article still being referenced. Sorry but cannot work on this article for the next few days. Jeuno ( talk) ( contribs) 08:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep, I cleaned up the sources and the prose seems generally good now. I would also prefer to keep only one of the color palettes to reduce image bloating, but the article seems to be in decent shape now CollectiveSolidarity ( talk) 16:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep Although the lead can be better and its sourced content should be moved at the overview section. I think overall is fine. OnlyFixingProse ( talk) 09:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep What people seem to forget is the difference between GA and FA. This article passes the Good Article Criteria. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Do you think the resolution of the final images of r/place are sufficient enough for commentary without destroying smaller art pieces in the image, but comply with WP:NFCC and WP:IMAGERES?
This can be a difficult situation because most of them contains derivative work of another non-free content. But if we reduce it further, it would destroy smaller art pieces that are probably the subject of commentary. However, the pixel art derivative works shows the dedication and effort done by multiple Reddit communities by over 6 million people (in 2022 version), which is the subject of sourced critical commentary.
Do you think the image should be resized slightly larger, or smaller? An alternative is to reduce larger derivative work pieces, while leaving other unchanged, but this can be difficult, and may be detrimental for readers.
Also for the 2022 version, should we use the version right before the white pixels start? I've originally uploaded with this version, but someone overwrote with different (larger) version, and I downsized it per policy. -- Stylez995 ( talk) 23:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC) (Edit: fixed mistake. -- Stylez995 ( talk) 23:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC))
{{
RetouchedPicture}}
template can be used to notify user about the image has been modified. --
Stylez995 (
talk) 17:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add this to the internet culture section of the 2022 r/place:
"Additionally, very many images of the crewmate from the game Among Us appeared all over the canvas, with a Reddit user using a script to check the entire canvas and counted 3,572 crewmates. [1] [2]
References
172.112.210.32 ( talk) 02:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. That seems to be covered with References to popular culture, Internet memes and politics were commonly visibleScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 11:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I've got a couple sources here :
1
2
3
4
3 of them refer to the events of r/place as "The Great Pixel War", while the other insists on how r/place was like a war. My proposition, henceforth, would be to put forward the following motion : That the introduction refers to the fact that the events that took place in r/place are also known as the Great Pixel War. We know, though, that there has been two editions of r/place so far, 2017 and 2022, so it would be safe to say that they can also be referred to as "The Great Pixel Wars, purely through natural deduction. So here I offer what I believe are the two possibilities relating to my proposition. I put in bold what would be the possible new addition.
1-r/place, also known as the Great Pixel War, was a collaborative project and social experiment hosted on.....
2-r/place, also known as the Great Pixel Wars, was a collaborative project and social experiment hosted on.....
The specific words are of course subject to change depending on how you feel. Maybe the term "colloquially" is to be considered as a strong replacement.
That's it. Thank you for your time, and merry editing.
Witcher of Izalith (
talk) 04:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
The usefulness of a reliable source doesn't stop at the language it's written in.