Wikipedia talk:Sandbox/Wikistory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Relevance
I hate to be a spoilsport, but I wonder about the relevance of this to Wikipedia's mission. We're out to create an encyclopedia; if you want to write collaborative fiction, I'm sure there are plenty of other wikis where you can do so. This page alone isn't harmful, but if we keep allowing this sort of thing Wikipedia's servers risk getting slowed down (more so) by all sorts of silliness. --Shibboleth 23:58, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Lighten up = there's enough room for some light heartedness. Brookie 09:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Not convinced
Agree with above in the strict sense of an encyclopaedia. However Wipipedia, I think, is more than just an encyclopaedia, and is also a reflection of the people who contribute to it. In this case Wikistory serves a dual purpose:
- to illustrate one-word-at-a-time story creation
- allow an entry to be created by each user... microediting I suppose.
Note should be made that the first sentence on the community portal page [1] reads:
"Wikipedia is: both an encyclopedia and a wiki community."
and as such I think a wikistory is not out of place, expecially when it also serves as a portal for 'random' links to other words / ideas. --Belizarius 01:00, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- This reminds me of User:I am sexy and the nonsense surrounding that. Adam Bishop 22:41, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Insert as well as append?
- The eventual story could become more cohesive and expressive if each author could choose to add their single word anywhere in the story, (and in so doing, change punctuation accordingly). Any thoughts? AdmN 14:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- But doing this would ruin the humor 204.38.191.99 14:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- We are no more than monkeys armed with typewriters. Remember, we are nothing but monkeys in this glorious project. So let's type! -- Toytoy 14:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
- But doing this would ruin the humor 204.38.191.99 14:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Good idea
Good thought AdmN... it would become much more elastic that way. --203.4.164.2 22:35, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Link please
Good to see contributions, but wouldn't it be nicer to link one sentence to the preceding ones? try to make a 'story', pls... huh...
I think AdmN'S suggestion would also help in that endeavour. --FG 22:54, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- it doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever so far... does it? --FG 23:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You know, it's kind of hard to explain, but it is very difficult for the story to follow any particular path. For example, there was the sentence that started with the word "water", so I added "emulsification", because I knew that water has something to do with it, (er... in some way, right?). Then, someone added "Mr." in front of emulsification, which was hardly going to lead to anything sensible. So later, when someone added "eyeball", I found that I couldn't help myself: I made it Eyeball-Man. We could, at this point, make a concerted effort to jointly construct a new paragraph that attempts to explain the plight of a stoical automaton who releases cabbages... but I doubt we'd get anywhere. ;-) ;-) ;-) AdmN 23:49, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] NO MORE CHARACTERS
So far in 5.5 lines we have 5 to 10 characters (depends on how you coun't them... )
[edit] Right
It would be nice if this "story" showed some semblance of coherency. Eric119 05:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- In this case we would probably had to decide certain theme or something - Skysmith 08:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- Actually I've found this is kind of fun. I doubt it's practical to form a real story this way. It would take some dedicated people, and this is a wiki. Eric119 05:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
[edit] New?
So what's the protocol on starting a new one? Junkyardprince | Tark 22:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'd guess you just add a new section called Wikistory (Started 7th March 2005). Thryduulf 13:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Prepositions and Articles
Another thought. I propose that articles and prepositions not be counted as words, i.e. we can post "a" and "cheetah" at the same time, or maybe even "from the clambake" all at once? Thoughts? Junkyardprince | Tark 01:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree with that, the point is that you have no control over where the story goes beyond a single word at a time. Even if adding 'the' 'an' 'from' etc aren't very exciting, they are important and can make a difference. Consider the different tack a story can take in these versions "Breathlessly he sang Bob a love song"/ "Breathlessly he sang Bob the national anthem" / "Breathlessley he sang Bob 'Dylan songs to". Thryduulf 01:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough. Junkyardprince | Tark 01:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The only exception the one word at a time rule I would consider is two-word phrases being added as one, e.g. Ad Infinitum. Thryduulf 01:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Clodhoppers
Alka-seltzer-flavoured clodhoppers? that's disgusting! .......and a reason why I love Wikipedia. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- Rather you than me! Brookie:A glow in the dark 08:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Beautiful!!
The following is exceptionally beautiful! It has wonderful imagery to boot.
"...a lighthouse beams serenity across the beautiful nonsense-generating wikipedians' lawns."
Jaberwocky6669 04:17, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] VfD debate
Article was kept following this VfD debate. Sjakkalle 11:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Even though it was eventually kept, it would have been nice if Beland followed proper VfD procedure and posted the VfD notice on the actual article. I think us Wikistory writers would have liked to contribute to the vote. I no longer look at the VfD as a whole and this completely slipped under my radar. --Deathphoenix 12:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] gay, gay, gay, gay, gay ... =
- Incidentally Alaska's gay (70.57.65.226) Soßklopse masturbates Airfix's nozzle daily. France hates 2DTV's Powmodish whores of omisoka's debaucherous gay (70.57.65.226) Ichthyosaur. Enough Italians panicked Sea-Monkey's aunties Agathidium sp. so aurochsly singing ... shanties! "Canards
gay (70.57.65.226)(reverted) brokered gayly," said the pink gerbil vaporized when 009 vomited anchovies upon 008. Descartes sits on Nancy's dualist unclear-powered C5 keycap, deleting dabbawalas whilst handballers gesticulated lazily masturbating.
- Suddenly, rainbow trouts' gay (70.58.91.15)-hetrosexual pudding iftar randomly truncated Canadian phone factories' neverending political rigmarole venture, too. Fruitafossors delicately gay (70.58.91.15)
Someone keeps posting "gay" to this story. It's getting to be boring. I'll revert this kind of edits. -- Toytoy 00:56, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I concur. I reverted one person's "gay" edit as well. From now on, I think we can safely revert any "suspicious" user who adds the word "gay" to this story. --Deathphoenix 01:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
-
- Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles --Boivie 09:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] More syntax please
For the love of Mike, is anyone trying to formulate a sentance, or is everyone just listing off cool words they know?- Dr Haggis - Talk 13:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Cool words! :) Robdurbar 19:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] New Idea?
I think perhaps we could change it to a one-sentence-at-a-time story? That way, it'll be more like a story and less like random nonsense. (Sorry if that sounded insulting.) Plus, it would be kind of like Improv I guess.
- Or maybe allow people to edit the last couple sentances. --Snargle 02:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- A one-sentence-at-a-time story would work, but sepearte to the one-word-at-a-time story. Either start a new page or a new section on this page. Thryduulf 07:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Page set up for a sentence at a time story
I have set up a new articel for this - let's give it a go - it's here Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 13:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
