Talk:R/place

Proposed move

I think this would be better moving to /r/place as that is the actual name – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 20:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I AGREE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.127.206.63 (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I reiterate my comment from 5 years ago.  Nixinova   T   C   23:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

100% agree. SWinxy (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• RedditPlaceFinal.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 00:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• PD logo and fair use image of artwork in question

Could you point out specifically what’s wrong with them? I am not overly familiar with fair use laws, but they seem fine to me. WackyWikiWoo (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with them. This is a comment that says that... Kingsif (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I misinterpreted- thought “in question” meant “in doubt”. WackyWikiWoo (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Well written throughout
• I would change the heading 'Overview' to 'Experiment'

 Done WackyWikiWoo (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• "colourful" in wiki voice is in British English - is there a reason for this?

 Fixed WackyWikiWoo (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Expand "FEE" to "Foundation for Economic Education"

 Done WackyWikiWoo (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Is the FEE quotation directly lifted, because I think the verb "characterize" should actually be "characterizes"? This is a simple fix

This was directly lifted- the source used “characterize”. I’ve modified the quotation to include the s using square brackets. WackyWikiWoo (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Talk page and history look clear enough
• Is IB Times (currently [5]) a reliable source for the list (and is it needed, since there's a bunch of other sources for this part?)

 Removed WackyWikiWoo (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• The lead might be a bit long, and I'd move the canvas dimensions and date down into the experiment overview section. Maybe some other stuff could also be moved into the body, giving a better balance?

I’ve moved the dimensions down, but I think cutting the lead anymore will hinder its purpose to summarise the article’s main points. WackyWikiWoo (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• copyvio check looks fine, and inline citations used well.

Overall

• on hold A few things, mostly minor clean-up. Kingsif (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Looks good. Kingsif (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

No link to final version?

There seems to be no link to the final version of Place (the infobox image is for some weird reason not at full resolution, even though there doesn't appear to be a copyright restriction), nor to a timelapse of its evolution. Those seem like big gaps, and give me some doubts (compounded by the very short length and only 16 references) about whether the GA status is deserved. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

There's no link because the final Place was taken down by Reddit afterwards. It doesn't exist anymore. The best we can manage is a screenshot someone took at the end. I'm sure there are also timelapse videos out there, if someone felt it worth adding to the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think that GA is deserved, it is probably b or c class MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 03:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

Place (Reddit)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep, reliable sources have been added to document the 2022 version and overall the article meets the GA criteria. Jeuno (talk) (contribs) 10:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

@Sdkb: Could you expand on what you think needs addressing, besides adding mention of a recently-notable person you could do yourself? You fail to mention in your brief that there was a response to your query about the final version - Reddit removed it - and so the issue is resolved. And the other user who said "I don't think it deserves GA" gave no reasoning and seemed to be speaking, based on their edit history at the time, from a fallacious article length perspective. As in, I don't see anything that would undermine the GA status, besides a need to now mention Wardle, which you don't need a community GAR to do. Kingsif (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't find that response at all compelling. The image is still available from screenshots, and as it's the result of the experiment, I'd think it's clearly relevant enough to fall under NFCC. Regarding Wardle, did it only recently come to light that he created Place? I find it hard to believe that coverage of a topic could be comprehensive without mentioning who created it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue is, even with fair use, it is discouraged if not disallowed to upload works not from the original source - we can't give an original source anymore. There could also be actual NFCC issues with the "doesn't harm profits" criterion, if the version uploaded to Wikipedia becomes the main version available. And, yes, nothing I found when doing the review mentioned Wardle, because the only relevant part of the creator of Place was "Reddit user", people who are often pseudo-anonymous and non-notable enough to go into detail. "Made by a Reddit user we know nothing about"... When he became more notable recently, his past creation of "Place" came to light. I'm sure you could use google time machine to check, if proving so is important to you - or just add the name to the article and stop making out that a potential oversight of a non-notable person's name means that there will be other information missing, if you can't come up with what that information could be. Kingsif (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for not giving a more in-depth reasoning for why this page should not be of lesser value; I was only highlighting something that I thought was especially important. I did actually have a reason in which I was of this belief. I was mostly comparing two articles, The Button (Reddit) and Place (Reddit). From what I can find, the two are mostly the same in popularity and have, roughly, the same amount of popularity and coverage online. The button is longer, more referenced, meanwhile Place is significantly shorter. Even still, the button is still only start class, while Place is good class. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 05:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@MrMeAndMrMe: Thanks for expanding on your concerns; someone has probably not assessed the Button article for a while, but there are significant differences. Place's mechanics are simple - add a pixel to a communal drawing board - while the Button is complex enough that a whole section has been dedicated at its article to explain it; that adds to the length naturally. The other possible difference, which I haven't checked, is that in any formal review, like GA or a peer review, "clutter" text may be removed; it is possible that the article for the Button has unnecessary or too-detailed discussion of the subject that would be streamlined by going through a review process like the Place article did. Just my thoughts, but if there is anything specific that seems to be missing, you are welcome to either add it or bring it up in reassessment. But simple "well it's shorter than X article" isn't actually a reason to open a GAR, let alone an actionable comment. Kingsif (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I also think that starting your comment with following a short review is 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)

It's perfectly possible for a short GA review to be valid if the article is good enough going in; I would need to look more deeply at the history to determine if that's the case here. The salient fact for above is just that there are enough concerning factors that I felt it prudent to open this reassessment to ask uninvolved editors to take a look. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the drive-by comment, but I just read this article and I was surprised by the lack of a final image. Seems like a major omission. I also agree that the article is too short and should mention Wardle. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pythoncoder: No worries; I have tried to explain the potential copyvio issues with an image that does not exist at its original location, and now that r/place is back for 2022, there is again the permanency concern. Wardle was not notable until he made Wordle recently, and such information could easily have been added (as updates are to GAs all the time) without starting a reassessment. Kingsif (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Good and Featured articles should be regularly updated and maintained to qualify for these. Wordle became notable three months ago and I would not that maintained. Anyway, it doesn't classify for GA anymore as per recent events. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 02:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

You are going to need some strong defence for saying it 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)

Apologies for the ambiguity, I thought it would be somewhat obvious.

To continue to be a good article, it should be expanded to include a full description of the 2022 reception and experiment as good articles should not have any issues related to that. The creator of r/place should be included as well. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 20:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I've been looking around a bit to try and find the creator(s), and there only seems to be a primary source that mentions three people that were involved with programming it and describing how they managed to get it to work [1] at this external link. Also I would not be considering delisting this article yet as there are not many reliable sources out there that talk about the 2022 edition of r/place yet. (Especially ones that talk about differences in comparison to 2017 and reviews of it) Jeuno (talk) (contribs) 11:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

post-result, it was also missing any mention of moderation effort, which has an impact in how the resulting "cooperation" should be/would be perceived. Bart Terpstra (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2023 (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)

• Does anyone here understand GAR? It is not a !vote. People are encouraged to leave comments as if it was a GANR. If it would be a quickfail at GAN, they can suggest delisting. Otherwise, it is expected that one or more people be allowed to improve the article to affirm its status. Kingsif (talk) 17:52, 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)

Also, saw the nominator had a history of sockpuppetry and is now banned. His other good article was also astoundingly short in its review. I might want to pay that place a visit as well. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:35, 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)

Very well. I was not complaining but simply telling why it could not be considered a GA because of prose/verifiability. I am trying to fix those issues now. But if this came across as complaining, I apologize. But now since the event has ended, there should be plenty of technology sources to fill in the information gaps and maybe fix the image bloating. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:31, 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)

Ive changed it into Kotaku source. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 03:15, 11 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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Reddit Place Image.webp

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Does fact that u/Chtorrr placed pixels ignoring time limit of 5 minutes per pixel relevant for this article?

[Proof](https://www.reddit.com/r/place/comments/tv2lb6/mod_caught_cheating_previous_thread_locked_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) 109.245.35.63 (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, but seemingly not worth mentioning (see WP:DUE), even if it was published in a reliable source. SWinxy (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

No, unless it makes significant headlines. Reddit itself is not a reliable platform for fact-reporting. Admanny (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Admanny: It just needs to be WP:DUE. The fact that moderators bypassed time restrictions to place color tiles would be relevant and due to provide some context to the claim that Place is a community collaboration. But currently there are no reliable sources for the claim of moderators bypassing time restrictions, beyond instances of blacking out specific sections. "Significant headlines" are only a requirement for creating new articles. See WP:NNC. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2022

You should mention the reddit admin cheating with pixel-placing cooldowns in this. 2A02:810B:C63F:D158:2041:3663:9F0E:6C33 (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Ferien (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2022 (2)

I would like to add events that happened during this that were left out from the article. There were several events that happened that I want to add to the article that weren't included. Zain745 (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning the canvas resize and extended color palette

Re: User:MrMeAndMrMe's revision,

I agree that there are no reliable sources for this at the moment, I also tried to find one but failed; the only sources I see are the announcement posts (this and this) made by the moderators of r/place, though I admit don't really count as reliable sources either.

I also agree with your decision of removing from the article the events related to r/place 2022 since those are largely uncited and might be subjective. But I think we should at least mention that the canvas has been resized from the old 1000x1000 to 2000x2000. It's a pretty major change to not include in the article, and it is evident if one looks at r/place right now to see that the canvas is much larger than before. It's also made the article inconsistent since it now includes outdated information; the canvas is no longer 1000x1000 and color palette has more than 16 colors now, we even have an image in the article that shows the new 24-color palette.

The only solution I could think of right now is waiting until the event ends and see if new reliable sources pop up to mention this, but I wonder if there are any better solutions to this. I'd like to suggest at least mentioning the canvas resize and extended color palette then adding [citation needed] tag for now so that in the future, people could fill it in with a reliable source when it comes out. —LightbulbMEOW (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd prefer a {{cn}} (or nothing at all) and not worry about it. However, it is policy that the burden is on you to demonstrate verifiability (WP:PROVEIT), so no. Wait until a source mentions it. SWinxy (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Thanks for letting me know. I guess we can wait until then. LightbulbMEOW (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Winding down

r/Place is closing up, and is doing so by changing the only possible color placement to white.

Redoct87 (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022

Replace "has ended" near the bottom of the page with "ended on April 4, 2022". 172.112.210.32 (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

You may also want to replace "is currently ongoing" as well. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done —lightbulbMEOW!!! (meow) 02:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

More up to date final image

The image displayed for 2022 r/place was not directly before the event ended. As listed in this reddit thread, https://www.reddit.com/r/place/comments/twl21s/final_rplace_canvas/, rplace.space stored many snapshots, including 1649112455 ( https://rplace.space/combined/1649112455.png ) which was closer to the end of r/place than the current listed screenshot. As such, unless even closer images can be found, this would be a good replacement. 68.96.68.141 (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. The image has been replaced by newer one. —lightbulbMEOW!!! (meow) 07:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022 (2)

Change : "The French community was particularly dominant, also making strong use of Twitch to coordinate pixel placement, although it was alleged they were botting, with many of the pixels placed on their territory being brand-new accounts with similarly formatted names (many of which being in English, not French).[23]"

To : "The French community was particularly dominant, also making strong use of Twitch community to coordinate pixel placement, using browser's extension layer to help putting right pixel color at right place. They were attacked by Spanish and American during entire /r/place event pushing them to organize by 4 community's wave to re-build their creations as we can see on all timelapses."

Comment : Nothing can prove they were botting, they just used a layer to help but nothing illegal. English name are auto-named account when you create it fast on reedit. To conclude, they were just defending their square they got since start on the bottom left, against multiple countries. They began by not understanding the purpose of /r/place, but they changed the second day doing nice creation in their square... Not like spanish and american twitch communities that were just attacking to attack... Emoc11 (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment : French don't use reddit that much (one of the reasons could be our poor english's lvl) so a lot of people had to create a new account to participate, and new account get an automatic name with two english words and a random number — Preceding unsigned comment added by Little-kinder (talk • contribs) 09:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

We were not botting, the TwitchFR community is very big ! More than 220 000 on one stream and more than 50 streamers ! So a really biiiig community ! So please change this page and stop saying that we were botting ! 2A04:CEC0:11AF:1196:2C39:B3A7:D7:35FE (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Since this was a controversial statement with a bad source I removed it. Skyshifter ^talk 12:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding non-copyright restriction templates?

With images that have this much content, it's bound to have some legal restrictions (Trademarks, flags, insignias, Communist symbols, symbols of dissent, etc). Is it even worth adding all of them? lol1VNIO (talk • contribs) 14:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC); Edited 14:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

We are WP:NOTCENSORED, as well as using these images in fair use and de minimis. I don't see we have any problem here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Missing colours in r/place's 2022 colour palette

The article shows 24 colours for the colour palette of r/place's 2022 edition whereas it in fact had 32 colours at the end (and 16 at the beginning). This 24 colour palette corresponds to Day 2 of the experiment, when the canvas' size was 2000*1000. On the first day, only 16 colours were available, and on the 3rd day 8 new colours were added to the 24 already present, as shown in this picture : youtube link

Another proof in directly by looking at the canvas, in which we can see some colours that are not present in the 24 ones given in the article. For example the flesh-tone colour that can be seen on the LUL face (975, 1235) is missing : https://www.reddit.com/r/place/
Nethos MS (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done by User:Paintspot. lol1VNIO (talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Why not use these SVGs I made over the weekend? They were removed for some reason (too many photos?). SWinxy (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as stated in revision 1081142195. lol1VNIO (talk • contribs) 16:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, a recent revision removed the colors from day 1 and 2 in favor of better page performance? Are those extra color boxes really going to cause bad performance? If it really causes a performance problem, then maybe there should be 1 image showing all 3 days. Another idea is that day 1 and 2 can be in hidden spoiler boxes. I'm having trouble logging in so I can't make any edits myself.--2603:8000:6A00:5E57:F498:433C:E706:D582 (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Low resolution final images

Why are the final images presented in such low resolution? Higher resolution versions are available here for the 2017 version https://www.reddit.com/r/place/comments/6386cf/high_resolution_image_of_final_rplace_image/ and here for the 2022 version https://www.reddit.com/r/place/comments/tx5grt/32k_version_of_final_canvas_before_whiteout/ I'd upload and replace with these versions myself, but I'm not sure if there's a good reason why such poor quality images are being used at the moment. K3fka (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

This is because the image contains copyrighted material and is therefore non-free. The image resolution needs to be reduced to comply with fair use, per WP:IMAGERES. —lightbulbMEOW!!! (meow) 11:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Mashable as a WP:RSP source

@CollectiveSolidarity: I'm not sure if you are right about removing Mashable. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_334#Mashable/ Here's the WP:RSP consensus about it:

The overall consensus was that while non-sponsored content is generally fine, Mashable tends towards less formal writing and is geared at a particular niche (tech news and pop culture). As such, non-sponsored content should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, especially if the subject matter is outside of Mashable's usual focus. Extra attention needs to be paid when it comes to sponsored content, especially ensuring that the content was written by Mashable staff and not the sponsor themselves

.

Reddit and r/place falls in the "tech news and pop culture" part, so I imagine it's fine to allow them as a source in this article. Let me know what you think. Tetizeraz - (talk page) 07:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah sure it could work. But I'd prefer more professional tech magazines for a GA, such as Ars Technica, The Verge, and Gizmodo because there is consensus at WP:RSP that they are generally reliable for tech/pop culture and have a more formal writing style. I'd try to use Mashable if there was no other good source, because it often reads like a blog. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 10 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) NW1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 15:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Place (Reddit) → R/place – r/place is a way more popular search term than "Reddit place", "Place Reddit" and "Place (Reddit)" all combined. Most other articles about subreddits follow the "r/[subreddit]" convention. "r/Place" is also sometimes used, but officially it is lowercase. lol1VNIO^{[not Lol1VNIO]} (talk • contribs) 14:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UCRN and the nine references shown. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

References

• Oppose - r/place already redirects here. No move is needed as this is the experiment and not the aforementioned subreddit featured around the experiment. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Support per everyone else' considerations. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, the article is about the social experiment rather than the subreddit itself. See also The Button (Reddit). 162 etc. (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per 162 etc. Jeuno (talk) (contribs) 11:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Support per WP:COMMONNAME, pretty sure nowhere else on the internet has ever called r/place “Place (Reddit)” or “Place” other than Wikipedia, as proven by the references. Jeuno (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:COMMONNAME, r/Place or r/place seem recognizable and abide by Wikipedia policy on the matter but just "Place" or "Place (Reddit) does not make sense. Yes, the article is referring to the social experiment and not the subreddit itself, but that social experiment is known in popular culture as well as to the news media and sourcelist as being named "r/place", not "Place" HolmKønøman (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• The social experiment itself is commonly referred to as r/place even when referring to the general event rather than just the sole subreddit webpage HolmKønøman (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support r/place is a more natural disambiguation. According to policy, natural disambiguations are to be preferred over parenthetical disambiguation, especially in cases like this when "r/place" is probably more widely used than "Place". --Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per HolmKønøman. --Noahfgodard (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per HolmKønøman and the naming conventions of other similar articles (ex. r/The_Donald, r/antiwork) wizzito | say hello! 01:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support per WP:NATURAL, this is a slam dunk Red Slash 17:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME as mentioned before. Tetizeraz - (talk page) 20:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per HolmKønøman. The event is referred to as r/Place by a myriad of news sources. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 05:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Better and more common name. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support per WP:COMMONNAME / WP:UCRN and WP:NATURAL, r/Place is the most commonly used name. 2600:1700:8820:2A10:89E5:F0D7:CEF1:26F8 (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. It's also way more relevant and common. Dissoxciate (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support WP:COMMONNAME since most sources and people would call this experiment r/place. Flyme2bluemoon (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 Done Dr. Vogel (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Appropriate resolution for final images?

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?

• File:RPlace2017.png, currently set to 400 x 400.
• File:RPlace2022.png, currently set to 600 x 600.

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))

This is just my opinion, but 2022 should do the one right before white pixels start. Also, the current sizes for 2022's version is all right; big enough to see the most major elements, but not so small that small and very niche images (e.g. the Dart Monkey from Bloons TD 6) are absolutely indecipherable. We could ask other Wikipedians for feedback, but this is my take on the size stuff. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I kind of want a more selective approach to compressing the image as portions of the image that would otherwise be indecipherable may be critical to Wikipedia commentary. For example the /r/FuckCars Reddit image on the canvas can be compressed greatly without losing much fidelity but the gacha corner, not so much without turning into a pixelated mess. Same with the osu! logo. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 00:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a great idea, in theory. However, I am not sure of a simple way to compress specific parts of the image. Conventional way is to just manually resize an entire image, but hard to say for already large portions of an image while not making pixelated messes for much smaller and/or more intricate pixelarts. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)