Talk:Polandball

Note

Still in the process of additional research.

Cheers,

-- Cirt (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Internet Archive

Please, I ask of you, don't remove citations that are archived to the w:Internet Archive.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

1. I just read the relevant portion on what it means to be durably archived at WT:ATTEST.
2. WT:ATTEST specifically says: "Where possible, it is better to cite sources that are likely to remain easily accessible over time, so that someone referring to Wiktionary years from now is likely to be able to find the original source. As Wiktionary is an online dictionary, this naturally favors media such as Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google.".
3. Google is seen, therefore, to be a reliable company to back up hyperlinks = "durably archived".
4. Why is the company Google being given higher preference than the w:Internet Archive ?

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

New additions

These new additions are acceptable, yes??? -- Cirt (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Added languages French, Italian, and Polish

Added languages French, Italian, and Polish.

With three (3) cites each entry, to posts on Usenet via Google News Groups archived links which satisfy WT:ATTEST.

Please see DIFF.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Year sections

Year sections on the Citations page is a most helpful way to organize information chronologically and also to ease future additions.

Please, let's keep this format on the Citations page.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we please discuss, here on the talk page? If I don't get a response or willingness to discuss, here on the talk page, I'll add the year sections back. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think they're that helpful in a section with only five citations. When all the citations fit on a single screen, year headings won't speed navigation much. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good, thank you very much for the helpful and polite explanation, and taking the time to post here, most appreciated !!! -- Cirt (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Archive proposal

I propose to archive the top three threads on this page which dealt with issues since resolved or addressed. -- Cirt (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If there's no response to this talk page post, I'll archive above threads, so as to focus future discussion on pending unresolved issues and avoid cluttering up the page with historical resolved posts. Thank you for your attention to this talk page, -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. I have never encountered a normal talk page (that is, a page in the Talk: namespace rather than the User talk:, Wiktionary:, or Wiktionary talk: namespace) on Wiktionary that is archived this way, and I see no reason to do something unusual for this page. If you think that we should start regularly archiving pages in the Talk: namespace, I suggest you start a discussion in the Wiktionary:Beer parlour to gain consensus. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 03:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"I haven't seen this before" is a much weaker argument than mine, above. It helps to focus discussion on issues currently ongoing, and remove those that are old or addressed. Sorry but just saying "oppose" because "I don't like it" is not an effective argument, IMHO. -- Cirt (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying oppose because it is not common practice on Wiktionary. Again, if you want to change the way talk pages are treated here, please start a discussion in the beer parlour. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 03:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope, not proposing to change the entire culture on this website, just to remove clutter from this particular talk page. I've seen no compelling argument not to do so, above. Other than "not common practice" -- with no explanation as to why. -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

RFV discussion: October 2015–August 2016

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

Polandball

There are currently two quotations in the entry and the citations page, from the same source, which does not appear to be durably archived. The entry needs three independent, durably archived citations spanning at least a year to be kept. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 12:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Multiple archives to w:Internet Archive. -- Cirt (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The w:Internet Archive backs up the links so they will never be dead-links. -- Cirt (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

1. I just read the relevant portion on what it means to be durably archived at WT:ATTEST.
2. WT:ATTEST specifically says: "Where possible, it is better to cite sources that are likely to remain easily accessible over time, so that someone referring to Wiktionary years from now is likely to be able to find the original source. As Wiktionary is an online dictionary, this naturally favors media such as Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google.".
3. Google is seen, therefore, to be a reliable company to back up hyperlinks = "durably archived".
4. Why is the company Google being given higher preference than the w:Internet Archive ?

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine isn't considered durably archived—see #rickrollear above and Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2012/March#More on the Wayback Machine for a longer discussion. As I understand it, the reason Usenet is accepted is more than just Google—see #parcelcopter above as well as the Beer parlour discussion. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2012/March#More_on_the_Wayback_Machine seems to suggest Wayback Machine is okay for the Citations page. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done = I've added Usenet Google Group archived durably cited attestable entries. Three (3) Usenet cites in Polish language, and one in French language and one in Italian language. -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Update: We now have on the Citations:Polandball page = three (3) Usenet cites in Polish language, three (3) Usenet cites in French language, and three (3) Usenet cites in Italian language. Hopefully this is now sufficient to keep this page from being disappeared from this site? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

They would be fine for French and Polish entries, but an English entry requires English cites. If the English cites were stories that had appeared in print, but were also on the internet news service, that would work. Unfortunately, the ones you've included so far seem to be strictly online- even the one that's produced by staff from a print newspaper. As for the "Polandball Book", I'm not sure what it is, exactly. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Krakow Post is in print and online. -- Cirt (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the "Polandball Book", and I think it counts as a legitimate English-language usage - it is a book of Polandball comics, it is durably archived (even has an ISBN), I'm not sure about any of the other citations. Kiwima (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Kiwima (talk • contribs), your help is most appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure: it seems to be some kind of internet-only print-on-demand kind of thing. I don't know enough about ISBN's to know if durable archiving is part of the process. At any rate, all of the ISBN sites I checked had no trace of the book. I was sincere when I said I don't know what it is, exactly- it may be durably archived or it may not be. Someone who knows more about such things will have to sort it out. As for the Krakow Post, it looks to me like the online content is independent of the print content, though I'm sure there's a great deal of overlap. If it had been in the print editions, I would have expected something like a byline with date of publication. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Krakow Post article was written by journalist Steven Hoffman. -- Cirt (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Update: Added languages French, Italian, and Polish.
2. With three (3) cites each entry, to posts on Usenet via Google News Groups archived links which satisfy WT:ATTEST.
3. Please see DIFF.
4. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It's amusing that this is more attested in other languages than English, and that despite being coined in 2009, it hasn't caught on. Well: whether or not the book itself is durably archived, it's mentioned here: 2013 August 19, "m4rkiz", Re: "Polandball Can Into Games" :), in ttpl.rec.gry.komputerowe. The Business Post and Krakow Post both appear in print as well as online, although it's not clear that the articles we're citing appeared in the print version as opposed to only online. Also: strictly speaking, the Polish entry has two lowercase citations and one uppercase citation is available; ditto the Italian entry. The French entry also only has two citations, since two of the three are from the same author (RVG). By a strict interpretation of CFI, they'd all fail. - -sche (discuss) 06:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This is why I keep saying we should get rid of the words durably archived. Because we don't allow all durably archived stuff. With The Wayback Machine you can durably archive anything you like but that doesn't mean we'll accept it. If we want to allow only published stuff and Usenet, let's stop lying to everyone and come out and say it. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• The English entry was declared as RFV passed by -sche in diff on 3 August 2016. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)