Talk:17776

Infobox (and I guess the banners too)

I know @MapleStrip and I have discussed this off-wiki, but I forgot that isn't exactly useful, lmao. So, while I concede that the work could be considered a comic, I'm hesitant to call it such because there's no sources stating that it may be. The RSes call it a short story, simply a work or a story, etc. To that end, I'm not exactly sure that using the comic infobox is the best path, or, well, also organizing it under WP Comics. Arguably, we could use Template:Infobox short story on that grounds. But, really, it's not exactly necessary to have an infobox, especially with an article at this length. But, that's a philosophical discussion that's constantly ongoing somewhere. Pinging @Bobamnertiopsis: whom I just reverted for adding the infobox. (Sorry! I just wanted to leave the article in the stable state.) ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I should note that the infobox chosen doesn't actually matter all that much, as long as it has reasonable attributes. I've been using the Template:Infobox comic strip for webcomics eventhough it's not really made for it, because it doesn't really matter too much what the name of the template itself is. This infobox features a launch date and end date attribute, which would be very useful here. The short story infobox has a "Published in" attribute, which may be useful, but it basically takes the same role as comic strip's "publisher" or "syndicate" role. Really though, I'm starting to think we just kinda need a webcomic-specific infobox... ~Mable (chat) 10:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't it matter? I feel like we wouldn't have so many infobox templates if the thing that mattered was just that the parameters match. One could use Infobox Book instead of Infobox Poem instead of Infobox Animanga here—but we wouldn't because it isn't any of those things. Whether or not Infobox Comic Strip is appropriate, I think, is similarly determined the same way. And what exact format 17776 is is sort of, from what I can tell, up for debate, and I'm not sure we have the latitude to make the judgment without sourcing? I still question the necessity of an infobox for this particular article, with so short a lead at this time, has debatable merit: information like the serialization dates, where it was published, who wrote it, are all in like three sentences. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 13:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Another option is to create a custom infobox for just this article, though I don't believe there is any precedent for that. I think an infobox would look good on this article, though... ~Mable (chat) 15:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK?

This article is still new enough and is definitely long enough that it could be submitted to Did you know. Any suggestions of interesting hooks? BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 01:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I was definitely thinking about this as well, but looking at the article, nothing really good comes to mind. I think the premise alone would make a great DYK, but none of that section is actually sourced... ~Mable (chat) 10:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Some ideas:

17776 was published over ten days, but its style and medium garnered comparisons to Homestuck which has been going for over seven years.

17776 has been compared to the work of Don DeLillo, Italo Calvino, Thomas Pynchon, and Reddit threads. Sumana Harihareswara 14:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Anything about the plot, iirc, won't be accepted because the DYK needs to be based in a real-life element. The Homestuck one kind of seems like two unrelated statements: what does Homestuck running for seven years have to do with anything and how is 17776 running for ten days have to do with its style? The second one sounds like a better hook, I think, though I'd personally add a bit about the robot trolls in there and about Homestuck because it really offsets the DeLillo and Calvino comparisons? I'd say it's the best bet. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed with Maplestrip that the most interesting thing about 17776 is the fact of its existence and its content. DYK rules for fiction works require that hooks be about more than just the content of the work, so something like "in 17776, space probes have been watching humans play a game of football at the bottom of a canyon for 13,000 years?" or whatever wouldn't work. Sumanah, I like your second hook idea. What if we clued the reader into what the story is a little bit, something like "that a story about the state of American football in the year 17776 has been compared to the work of Don DeLillo, Italo Calvino, Thomas Pynchon, and robot trolls on Reddit?" BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 14:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Bobamnertiopsis, I like your suggestion! Sounds good to me. Sumana Harihareswara 18:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Nominated here. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 19:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Good article?

Hey all! Does anyone have any objections to a GA nomination for this article? —Collin^{t c} 02:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

As one of the primary contributors to the article, I do not. I was actually thinking about it recently. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Am I allowed to review this GA nomination? I am not sure if my initial involvement with this article counts as significant, as it was 100% overwritten and done in a somewhat hasty fashion. I would absolutely love to help this GA nomination along. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a good question! The criteria for who can review only state that "To review an article you must [n]ot be the nominator nor have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review" so I think your case is ambiguous. To be safe, I might err on the side of not conducting the review; anyway, there's no rush for this article to attain GA status and the wait until a review is finally conducted may be a good time to fine-tune the page. There are still a few refs that might be added (the Wired link, above and perhaps the dissertation in the Further reading section) and I'm sure we can run an internal review against the GA criteria before the official review if we really want to. Thanks for your work on this and everything! —Collin^{t c} 22:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Collin! I'll go through the article at some point regardless and will see if I can improve it, and I will leave the official GA review to someone else. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 22:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

On the infobox being removed

This page's infobox has been removed and I'm not entirely sure if I fully understand/agree with the reasoning. I realize there's been some prior discussion about what kind of infobox template is appropriate for this page, but I think people have been missing the point. It doesn't matter what the template's name is as long as the attributes make sense with the page, as no one but editors will see the particular infobox template being used. I'm not sure how having an infobox template specifically for webcomics or even one just for this page would be an improvement over just using "comic strips", even if that label is not appropriate 17776. As a side note, I chose "comic strips" because that's the infobox template being used for the Homestuck page, which is probably the closest comparison.

As for the infobox being "sparse", isn't that the entire point of infoboxes? To summarize the information at a quick glance for reference/comparison? That is what Help:Infobox seems to say. Linguistical (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree: the name of the infobox is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not 17776 is a webcomic in this case, because the infobox just works very well for it. Author, website, current status, begin and end date, "publisher", and genre all works really well here. I would hardly call the infobox sparse, especially compared to some other infoboxes in this project. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm thirding the calls for the reinstatement of the infobox for the reasons above and also wondering if there's an image we can put in it from 17776, either a title still from the first video (here) or a relevant screenshot depicting an average window of content from the piece. —Collin^{t c} 08:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Simply the letters "17776" in a certain font can be considered public domain. An image like this could work as well: [1]. That being said, the exact video still you linked would be perfect. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, as seeing that infoboxes aren't required for use in an article, I believe infoboxes should be implemented when they would be more than only a handful of parameters long and when the information they summarize cannot be easily picked out of the lead at a glance. As it is, 50% of the information in the infobox is in the lead sentence and the remaining information, with exception of a link to the website itself (which is easily found in external links), is found in the third sentence. The lead is not so long that this information is "buried" that the infobox is necessary to call the information out, and there's a difference between the infobox being concise and it being sparse. I also believe that it's inappropriate to use infoboxes for works outside of what they're designated for, the difference here being that Homestuck is actually described and agreed as a web comic; if it didn't really matter what infobox one used as long as the parameters made sense, then {{Infobox short story}} or {{Infobox animanga}} can theoretically be used on this article as well (but they shouldn't be). That said, consensus as it is, rendundant and almost silly as I think the infobox would be to have in a lead that short. I would say the same exact thing for the articles linked for comparison.

I do agree that finding a screenshot from an image, or the landing page of the chapter list, would be appropriate. I don't think just having the title in a font is the way to go. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:17776/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) 12:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm doing this review. So far so good. As it's getting a bit late where I live, I may continue this review tomorrow or over the next few days, but right now, my main suggestion is that the lede is rather inadequate: it only talks about its premise and release, and does not mention anything about its production, themes, or reception. At the very least, an additional paragraph in the lede explaining so may be needed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at incorporating important points from all sections! —Collin^{t c} 04:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the expansion Collin. There doesn't seem to be that many issues I can see right now, so within a few hours I'll give this a full review; passing should be a formality by now. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks much, Narutolovehinata5! —Collin^{t c} 02:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry for the delay, I have been busy with real-life activities and other Wikipedia related work. I'll give the full review tomorrow, but this is for now a tentative pass. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwigs gave a score of 49% with Goodreads, but I think it was Goodreads that copied from Wikipedia rather than vice-versa. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   No outstanding problems were seen. Good job! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Splitting off 20020 and 20021 into a separate article

the 20020 section of this article is incredibly short. 20020 is only a few chapters shorter than 17776, but most of its chapters are twice as long, and include more music and video. Is there any reason not to split this off into a more detailed 20020 article, with a small 20021 section at the bottom, noting its unexpected delay of release? thepurplemage (talk!) 16:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

20020 has to establish it has standalone notability first, via reviews and other critical reception and third party commentary. I haven't recently looked into whether there's any of that, but if there is, a split may be warranted, but if there isn't, it'll just end up being merged back here eventually. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)