Talk:Countryballs/Archive 1

Revert - rationale

I have reverted these edits for the following reasons:

1. "Radosław Zapałowski an UK based journalist claims it" is original research. The publication it appeared in is a Polish-language culture magazine published in the UK. But there is nothing in the article which states he is UK-based. For all we know he could be Zimbabwe-based.
2. Where he is based is irrelevant to what is being put forward in the article
3. The fact that "Poland cannot into space" is sourced clearly within the article to Przeglad which clearly states "Jeden z nich, bez wątpienia najpopularniejszy, zaczyna się od informacji, jakoby w Ziemię miał uderzyć gigantyczny meteoryt." It is also referenced to Wyborcza which clearly states "Powody płaczu są różne, w rosyjskich komiksach często wynikają po prostu z tego, że rosyjska piłeczka może latać w kosmos, a Polska nie (piłeczki rozmawiają ze sobą podobnym zdeformowanym angielskim jak "lolcaty", więc kanonicznie to hasło brzmi: "Polandball cannot into space")."
4. I have also removed Category:Anti-Polish sentiment as there is no reliable source for this in the article. The Cooltura article states "Ostatnia internetowa moda wyśmiewająca Polskę i naszą flagę narodową, która szerzy się w cyberprzestrzeni to kolejny dowód na stale tlący się w kręgach zachodnich elit i wśród społeczeństw ideologiczny antypolonizm. Albo nie. W każdym razie obrażamy się jako pierwsi, zanim etatowi polonijni moraliści zapłoną świętym ogniem oburzenia. A potem, jak zwykle, spłoną ze wstydu." It clearly puts forward the notion that it may be....or may not be..."antypolonizm". This in itself is not enough to place it in anti-Polish sentiment. Particularly, when the meme itself also deals with other "countryballs" as is referenced by Wyborcza.

Those are the reasons for the revert. Please discuss. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 21:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

3-it says nothing about Polish space program not existing, only about "balls flying in space".--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

4-"negatywnym bohaterem jest kuleczka w barwach Polski". --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Resurrect this article?

@Sandstein: Hi, I am thinking about resurrecting this article. Although the consensus was deletion in 2012, it seems that this meme has gained enough fame to be notable enough. The evidence is that versions of this article is present in almost all major (83) versions of Wikipedia, including Simple English Wikipedia. I feel this situation warrants at least a reconsideration. --Ahyangyi (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This article has been very controversial because of the issues of nationalism associated with it. I've no opinion about its notability, but I believe that any restoration should only occur after consensus to do so is obtained at WP:DRV. Also, other Wikipedias aren't relevant; what is needed per WP:N is substantial coverage in reliable sources.  Sandstein  18:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It was deleted under WP:CENSORED, not notability. Has WP since become less partisan? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible additional sources

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Some possible additional sources at links above. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Draftspace protected

I tried to boldly move this article to Draftspace to allow article improvements before a possible AfD, but Draftspace is protected.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• There has been more discussion at [1], where the removal of the draftspace protection has been ruled to be too controversial for WP:REFUND.  As per the protection log, link, the reason for salting was, "(Repeatedly recreated: See Polandball) (hist)".  The links don't seem to be helpful, but that is what is in the log.  Pinging @Sandstein:.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Considering that the article has been recreated, I don't object to unprotecting the Draft namespace. But since another admin has declined to do so because they considered that this would be contrary to what was decided at DRV, it appears to me that this should be discussed with the DRV closer first. I have no opinion about whether moving this to draft space would be useful.  Sandstein  18:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Is it against the guidelines to copy it into a userspace draft? Moving the whole thing into a draft seems a little extreme per the same guideline that says not to protect pages based on potential vandalism, but I can't for the life of me remember what the name of that was. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 19:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• I know it is important to preserve attribution to protect our licensing.  A memorable link that gets into the issue is WP:MAD (merge and delete).  Unscintillating (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
• At this point, I don't know why someone would use draftspace, but like you say, we don't protect an article space because someone might do something unhelpful with it.  Pinging @RoySmith:.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• This is all very confusing. I don't understand why anybody would want to move this article back to draft space. If the article has problems which need fixing, they can be fixed in place. If you think the article should be deleted, bring it to AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Were the reasons for the locking of Draft:Polandball lifted at the DRV?  As far as I know, the lock should have been cleared at WP:REFUND as non-controversial.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Normally, removing the protection would be non-controversial. I was actually inclined to do so until I looked at the DRV close, the article history, the deleted history, and this talk page. Three things stood out in my mind: (1) I saw a closing statement at WP:DRV that expressed desirability of further discussion of the article's merits at AFD; (2) I saw a statement at the start of this section expressing an intent to move the article to draft space to pre-empt a possible AFD nomination, which seemed counter to the DRV close; and (3) I saw a reasonably good main space article being actively and constructively edited by the community, in which case an un-discussed move would have been disruptive. The combined effect of those three observations suggested that unlocking the draft article would therefore be controversial, or at least have controversial consequences. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

My bad for writing a confusing DRV close. I didn't mean to imply that there was consensus to take this to AfD. I was just observing that, based on what various people had written, I would not be surprised if somebody were to do that. I have no opinion on whether it should be brought to AfD or not, nor did I find any consensus from the people who participated in the discussion whether it should or not. I've updated my closing statement to make that clear. As for unprotecting the draft title, I can't see any reason for the protection, and would suggest that it be unprotected. I think moving this article to draft space would be an inappropriate action for an individual editor to undertake, but that's something to be managed by discussion and consensus building, not enforced by protecting the title. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have unprotected the draft, now that Sandstein and RoySmith have expressed no opposition. However, like RoySmith and Satellizer below, I, too, am opposed to moving this article to draft space. There is no need, and doing so would be disruptive. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose moving article to draftspace. This article is obviously controversial (for stupid reasons, but it still is controversial) and doing something like "boldly moving" it randomly without consensus is absurd. The consensus at DRV was to restore to mainspace, not draftspace, and attempting to keep a perfectly fine article out mainspace due to a personal agenda is ridiculous. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 07:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

spaaaaace

The narrative of describing certain Polandball comics is a little weak, however the rationale behind the comic's rules and exceptions are rather interesting. For instance the rationale of "Poland cannot into space" is Polandball is the only flag drawn upside down (red over white) - since there is no "up" in space, therefore there is no "upside down". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.14.57 (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Source? '''tAD''' (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

am of wrong anyway. http://www.reddit.com/r/polandball/comments/1z6w16/challenge_reveal_superheroes/cfwl5az

Tried to get more formal reference but editors of Nature not returning phone calls... 72.37.244.196 (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

BRD, 3RR, Edit warring...

Pinging: Volunteer Marek (who violated WP:3RR), MoiraMoira (who violated WP:BRD, subpart of WP:BOLD), My very best wishes and Future Perfect at Sunrise plus a few others...ping 'em if you want their attention.

I have noticed on my watchlist that this page has been reverted a lot during the last few days. At first I did not really notice, but with this edit summary in this edit asked that WP:BRD to be followed since it was sourced material that was reverted.

Volunteer Marek seems to have reverted the same material (by different users) over three times, which might constitute violation of WP:3RR and simple edit warring. (The outcome does not justify the means.)

I have checked out the sourcing and it seem to be reliably sourced (and one not so reliable, but in addidition with the other sources makes it ok. This would require a discussion before reversion, but instead this articles became a war zone (or playing ground in some eyes). Please follow established policies and guidlines.

Unless someone can explain in this discussion why this should not be included, it should be reverted, since no comment regarding why it should not be has been given. (t) Josve05a (c) 21:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

All the reverts in question were evidently made against obvious socks of a banned troll, who so far has been the only person that wanted that edit included, so the reverts are irrelevant. If you want that material reinserted, you can of course make your case here. If you think a crappy article about a crappy internet phenomenon can be improved by bloating it up with yet more crappy renarrations of crappy cartoons, be my guest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Please hold a neutral tone when speaking about articles. Nobody cares if you do not like the meme, just as you wouldn't say on Talk:Barack Obama that it is "a crappy article about a crappy president". And yes I do belive thae article would be better with this information, but I am at least following WP:BRD, unlike you all that tries to follow WP:BRBRBRBRBPR (P=protect). (t) Josve05a (c) 07:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if Fut.Perf. saw my request at WP:RPP or what, but yes, the reverts were all made by a banned editor, who I assume is simply wasting our time. Alakzi (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Per BANREVERT you need evidence that there is a sock that is editing to circumvent 3RR. SUch evidence can only be made at an SPI. However since no SPI was filed and the account(s) was not blocked at the time it is a clear violation of edit warring. (t) Josve05a (c) 07:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't, the socks were bloody obvious, so shut up and stop enabling the troll, or I will block you for enabling him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Regardless of if they were 'obvious socks' or not, your threat to block @Josve05a:, not for violating policy, but merely for expressing that in his opinion others have violated policy is blatantly abusive, and way the fuck out of line. Being an administrator is not a license to block someone just because you dislike their opinion. Expect to be taken to ANI if you do so, or continue to make threats that are blatantly intended not to prevent damage or disruption, but instead to silence other editors. Revent^talk 08:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, @Future Perfect at Sunrise:, you're supposed to use the {{pp}} template when you protect an article. Revent^talk 09:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

In my first response above, I was assuming good faith, insofar as I was assuming Josve was genuinely unaware the accounts in question were socks of a banned user. Now, however, I find that Josve has a substantial history in editing and discussing this page and is well aware of the role of that banned user in its history, so he must have known these accounts were him. Under these circustances, I can only assume that his turning up here and pretending these were genuine editors and others had been violating 3RR against them was nothing more than a deliberate lie and a personal attack against those he was accusing of breaking 3RR. This is blockable disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., I'm acquainted with Josve through the Swedish Wikimedia chapter. I haven't looked into the details of this dispute, but from what I know, Josve interest in this is genuine. I don't believe he is here merely to disrupt.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy (specifically WP:3RRNO) explicitly requires that if an editor is claiming a 3RR exemption because they are reverting a banned user then there should be "a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption". Repeatedly reverting someone merely because you think they are a banned user, or tag-teaming to do so, is in itself disruptive edit warring unless you use an edit summary or the talk page to explain. Neither of the editors that Josve mentioned bothered to do so, or to give any explanation of why the material should be removed. They simply reverted, repeatedly, without explanation.

In addition, there is nothing in what Josve said that can even remotely be taken as saying that he does, or does not, know if they were 'genuine editors'. Claiming that his statements were a personal attack is just...bizarre. Saying that you believe someone has violated policy is not even remotely a personal attack, and that you have now changed your claim of why you threatened him from 'enabling a troll' to 'lying and personal attacks' is in itself evidence that you are reaching for a way to justify your threat. "Disruption" is clearly defined by the blocking policy, and 'reporting a user', or even 'disagreeing with an administrator', are not on the list. Edit warring, however, is. Revent^talk 09:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Rules-lawyering is also a form of disruptive behaviour. You are now engaging in it; stop it or the same block warning applies to you too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., this looks like a fairly ordinary content dispute to me.

How about everyone tries to de-escalate? Fewer accusations and content focus tends to help, especially when everyone is reasonably experienced.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

If people wish to discuss a content dispute here, they are perfectly free to do so. What they are not free to do is obstructing the work of people who are trying to uphold a ban against a particularly obnoxious sockpuppeter, harassing everybody who does so with spurious procedural rules-lawyering and accusations, and pretending people should be treating obvious ban-evading socks as potentially legitimate editors. Unfortunately, there is this entrenched cottage industry of Russavia-enablers who will do exactly that every time Russavia goes on a socking spree like this, and this pattern of systematic troll-enabling needs to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

What you (and others) are obviously missing here is that WP:RBI exists for a reason. I'm not an advocate of 'enabling' Russavia, I simply think that having a crowd of self-appointed 'sock hunters' (and this does not only apply to Rassavia) chasing around engaging in edit wars on multiple articles is pointless... that it, in and of itself, encouraging Russavia (or whatever sockmaster) to simply create new socks and continue to war with them. It is in no way unreasonable to ask that someone who is reverting what they believe is a sock to use an edit summary stating why they are reverting, and then ask a admin to block/protect if needed. Engaging in a week long edit war about it, over and over on multiple articles, is disruptive. It is not solving the problem, it is in fact doing the opposite; it is obviously, at this point, simply encouraging him to create new socks for the purpose of continuing the fight. You threatening to block people for pointing this out, or for (apparently) simply disagreeing with you, and telling other editors to 'shut up', etc., is in itself battleground behavior, and your comments here make it blatantly clear that you are not able to be impartial (or civil) about anything even remotely related to Russavia. That being the case, you need to back off and let other administrators deal with it properly. If other people want to act as 'enforcers' of a ban? RFA, SPI, RFPP, etc., are that way. Revent^talk 20:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., socking sprees are bad and I fully support your attempts to curb them. However, I think it's prudent to adjust reactions to the nature of the disputed content, though. We don't need to keep cruft and tolerate major coatracking, but this is a pretty harmless pop culture topic. There's no biographical info involved and no truly flammable information.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't looked into the accounts' edits in detail, but it seems that several accounts who have recently edited this page have been globally locked. I also note that at least two of the accounts have uploaded files to Commons which the accounts categorised into c:Category:Files uploaded for Russavia (aviation). See for example c:Special:PermanentLink/152834304 and c:Special:PermanentLink/153000971. This categorisation suggests that the accounts either belong to someone who has been banned from editing English Wikipedia, or to someone who is trying to impersonate that person. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's been pretty obvious for days that it was him, and officially confirmed at least since the block of Meidmanna (talk · contribs) three days ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• @Josve05a: The following reasons were provided when the passage was first removed: "removed per NOTA and NOR, since the referenced PB is a) not in citations 1) nor 2), and b) not needed here, since it's not a notable PB example (likely OR)". Do you disagree? Alakzi (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree since kurwa is one of the catchfrases of many polandball-comics, and since it is widly used one exaples of this should be included, whi it is now. Even if one person added a reason, then WP:BRD should be followed, which was not. (t) Josve05a (c) 17:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Like hell I'm gonna waste my time on this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That is your option, but please adhere to WP:civil please. (t) Josve05a (c) 17:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• WP:BRD does not apply because the text was included by a sockpuppet account. Now, here is text added by user User:Josve05a. After quickly looking at Google translation of the Polish text, I do not see how it supports the statement. Can Josve05a please quote the specific part of Polish text where this came from?My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Then you need evidence of it being a sock, which you did not have at the time. And per 3RRNO you need to spicify that during reverts (see Revents comment above.)

"Tradycyjnie komiksy kończą się obrazem płaczącej polskiej piłeczki."; "Zirytowana polska piłeczka wymawia najbardziej znane poza Polską słowo z naszego języka i bierze do ręki tabliczkę z hasłem używanym w internecie do wyśmiewania tych, którzy internetowe dyskusje traktują z przesadną powagą: "INTERNET. SERIOUS BUSINESS"." (t) Josve05a (c) 17:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

All right. Here is Google translation of your text: [2], and it tells something very different from the claim in the diff above. As about the sock, we know it now, right? In addition, this is simply a WP:DUCK for anyone familiar with the subject and the user. My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

If you look at, and translate, the entire source page [3], and look at the context of the second quote Josve gave, it is (in a lousy machine translation)..

"Pole Polish brawler see wąsiskiem sumiastym ball with that boring company peroration: "Once in general were the biggest in the world and beat the Russians". Other balls correspond to mock "lol" written in Cyrillic.
Polish annoyed ball pronounce most known outside Polish word of our language and picks up a plate with the password used on the Internet to ridicule those who treat Internet discussions with exaggerated solemnity: "INTERNET. SERIOUS BUSINESS". Other balls go, Polish ball is the same. I - by convention - crying in the final.

Other than the obvious defects of the machine translation, that hardly seems to me to be 'something very different'. Not that I'm taking a stance on the issue of including it or not, but it doesn't look like like it's misrepresenting the source. Revent^talk 01:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I only said that text provided by user Josve05a (above) to support his edit was telling "something very different". Yes, it was telling something different. I am not certain that you are right here (for example, I do not see word "kurwa"), but this is probably a kind of things only Polish-speaking contributors are qualified to judge, and I am not one of them. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: (nods) Yes, that is why I looked it up, and gave the longer text. The word 'kurwa' is what is actually used in the cartoon being discussed by the source, it's rather clearly the 'most known outside Polish word' being referred to. Similarly, the text "Once in general were the biggest in the world and beat the Russians" was "So when we crushed the Russians and the turks were were the biggest country in the world... and.." in the actual cartoon, it suffered greatly from being translated twice. Also, the Cooltura article cited seems to refer to this as an example of politico-historical satire. You're perfectly right that a reading of it by a Polish speaker would be better, but I don't think that it can really be described 'patently' misrepresenting the sources on the basis of machine translations. Revent^talk 23:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the word "kurwa" is implied in the article. The text provided above differed from the text being added substantially. If one read's the whole article I guess with a bit of a stretch, and a bit of OR the two versions are similar. Regardless, this is so stupid and trivial that it does not belong in the article. It's just an example of the cartoon. It's not necessary. It's trolling. And yes, whatever you may claim, it's troll enabling.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please don't try to sidetrack a discussion of the 'content' back into a discussion about Russavia. It makes it appear that you are arguing about it because of a personal bias against him. Revent^talk 00:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

But this thread has been started by Josve05a as a thread on behavior by users ("3RR, Edit warring" [4]). Here is my opinion: restoring an edit by an obvious "edit-warring only account" and starting a thread about behavior by other users was a very bad idea. And it did not really matter who was behind this edit. My very best wishes (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What is 'encouraging a troll' is fighting with them, responding to them over and over in the exact same way despite it being obvious that it's patently ineffective to do so. It's exactly what the troll wants you to do. What Josve was reporting was people acting as self-appointed vigilantes to 'fight' with the sockmaster, in a way that accomplished nothing except to validate his efforts to cause drama, and was itself far more disruptive than simply reverting it once with an edit summary, filing a report, and moving on to do something useful. When you engage in a week-long edit war, the troll wins. Revent^talk 08:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you seriously suggest to support socks and trolls by restoring their edits and blaming other users? My very best wishes (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: No, I suggest that you consider the merits of the edit (I have seen people edit war with a sock over them fixing an obvious typo, for example) and report the issue whether you revert or not, and avoid just edit-warring with the socks for a week (which validates the attempt to troll you). Revert it once if needed, and report it so an admin can deal with semi-protecting the page if needed. I don't know about Josve, but I'm not 'blaming' other editors for anything other than repeatedly insisting on letting the troll repeatedly successfully troll them because they apparently feel the need to act like a vigilante. If the edit isn't blatant vandalism, and you just disagree with it, mention it on the talk page after the first revert (and your report) and either lets the admin that deals with it revert the second time, or revert it after the page has been protected so you don't end up with 20+ edits adding and removing the exact same thing. Revent^talk 09:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You tell: let's administrators deal with such cases. Right. Why is then you and Josve (above) blamed FPS for completely legitimate administrative actions? In addition, speaking in general, no, the administrators need a lot of help from ofter users to deal with socks and trolls. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I was not criticizing him for the admin action he took to stop the trolling, which was to semi-protect the article (other than tangentially poking at him for not adding the template that marks it as semi-protected... he described it as a 'useless' template in his edit summary, but without the template it is not added to Category:Wikipedia semi-protected pages). I was criticizing him for threatening to block Josve just (and then me) for pointing out that what people were doing to 'deal with the troll' was itself completely counterproductive... if there is a 'cottage industry' of anything, IMO, it is of people who seem determined to win a war with Russavia, and are just encouraging him to keep trolling them. If you want to help admins deal with socks and trolls, fine. Revert once, with an edit summary or a talk page note, and report it. Edit warring with socks for a week is not helpful behavior... it is merely being successfully trolled. Revert, block, IGNORE, dammit. Revent^talk 05:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead image

There are no rules on drawing this character except as to not use a circle tool. However, I have very rarely seen the character have large eyes in the middle of the face, like in the current one.

I know that it is a user-made work which can vary, but most of the time I see the character like this, with small eyes in the red sector, sometimes extending slightly into the white '''tAD''' (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

That might be true. However the latter image is worse because of those fat lines and the overtly bad shape (not just somewhat bad). I endorse keeping the upper image and replacing it only with one that's pretty much the same with the sole exception being the eyes' placement and shape/size so that actually looks like in most of the comics. --Fixuture (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

OK I'm glad we've come to an agreement. Admittedly, those thick lines are unorthodox '''tAD''' (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yea, and nobody actually uses them for the comics. --Fixuture (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It is possible for it to be drawn either way. This is an internet meme that's hand-drawn, therefore it is drawn a number of different ways. The eyes are not necessarily obligated to be in the red portion. Mostly Reddit sticks to rigid rules like that.

Decentman12 (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Granted it is open-ended because it's user generated, but it should never end up as any of these (extreme examples, I know). Ironically, the one on the left would be called "cansur" [sic] by purists, because coloured stripes shouldn't be separated by a black line. So I've heard. '''tAD''' (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Changes to "See Also"

I'd like to ask a question, that question being whether or not we should include "Hetalia" in the "See Also" section. The only thing they share is their using nations and countries as the subject. As they do not share the same creator, are not the same form of media, or are not (arguably) both comedic, I propose that Hetalia should be removed from the "See Also" section. Kartupelis81 (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

As it has been multiple days without any response to my question, I have assumed that there are few or no objections. I have taken the liberty of removing Hetalia from the "See Also" section. Feel free to undo this change and add to this talk subsection if you happen to object to this change Kartupelis 19:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartupelis81 (talk • contribs)

Israel cube

It states on the page that Israel is a cube because of jewish physics, but the real reason it is a cube is because it was formed of leftover clay from the Ottoman Empire by the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Py1811 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2017

After reading some comments on reddit asking about why Kazakhstan is a rectangle, I got to this page, and noticed quite a few incorrect things on some parts of the page:

(Other countries)

>"Kazakhstan takes the form of a brick called Kazakhbrick, ostensibly due to Kazakhstan's attempts to join BRICS."

The true reason for that is because back on the /int/ part of Krautchan, where Polandball comes from, everyone had flags based on their IP to show where they came from. At some point, they changed the flags to round balls, very similar to the flairs we are using here. Somehow, Kazakhstan was forgotten and stayed flag-shaped. This is explained on the official polandball rules on Reddit under the "Current Stereotypes"; Explanation of why Kazakhstan is a brick, and it's possible to see the moderators confirming this stories in comments such as here

>"Billiard balls of 1 through 8 are used to represent stateless people, indigenous ethnic groups without a certain nationality, or ethnicities lacking a definitive flag. For example, the 1 ball (yellow) represents East Asians, the 7 ball (maroon) represents Native Americans and the 8 ball (black) represents Africans or black people in general. Extraterrestrials are represented by the 6 ball (green)."

It should be added here that only some of the cue balls are allowed on Reddit, while on other places such as Facebook all of them (1 to 8) are allowed, since on Reddit the billard balls are meant to represent skin color, so some balls such as 2, 3, 4 and 5 are forbidden there

Another thing that should be added here is that in most comics that include Antartica, it will talk using "emojis" instead of words. This is due to Antartica not having an official language. It also usually wears a scarf and goggles. An example of this can be found on the popular "polandball world map 2016", also seen on the 2014 edition

Also, the Omsk oblast is represented as a bird due to the rather popular Omsk bird meme (winged doom), as seen here (knowyourmeme) and here (reddit comment included in the polandball's rules)

(Background)

In the second paragraph of the background section, it is mentioned that "FALCO" was the creator of the meme, but it doesn't mention that his comic included Poland's flag drawn upside down. It is mentioned in the article that it's upside down, but not why. It's like that because the user decided to do it that way, it's unknown whether it was done on purpose or not

All of those comments can be found in the official polandball rules page on reddit

Thanks in advance Blue89962 (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Train2104 (t • c) 18:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Removing kugeln.io from cultural references section

I propose removing the section about cultural references, specifically the one and only paragraph about kugeln.io as poorly referenced. The only citation leads to a press kit released by primary source. I couldn't find other reliable sources to support its inclusion in the article and to establish notability. This would revert revisions 772539962 and 772547788. 80.221.152.17 (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this a common misconception?

Is this a common misconception?

There seems to be a mix up between the flag of Imperial Japan, which is the same as regular Japan, and the flag of the Imperial Navy, which has red stripes, and which I thought was the flag of Imperial Japan.

Since most of what American's dealt with was the IJN, that's the one most commonly seen.

I've also noticed that's how Polandball depicts the Empire.

Benjamin (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: It depends on context, although people just use it to depict Japan pre-1945. See this example, drawing inspiration from the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905. Found at /r/polandballart User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 23:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Religions and planets

The article doesn't mention that the characters can also include religions and planets as well. See r/planetball on reddit. --Daniel "Danny" Wilson (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Companyballs

After a series of editing wars, a "branch" of Polandball was created. It is called Companyballs, and focuses on companies such as Amazon and Google, and also brands like Youtube and Linux. The wiki page should also talk about that.17.255.252.177 (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

On Kazakhbrick

Kazakhbrick is a brick for another reason: Kazakhstan has expressed will to join BRICS. 17.255.252.177 (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Protection of this page

[5] Why is the protection of edits indefinite while the protection of moves was only 6 months?--2001:14BB:70:FC41:6B14:180F:80AB:FA4D (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Communities

Should this article have information about the Polandball Community and communities over the internet? For example, Reddit being the main, or at least more well enforced and maintained, section of Polandball, it differs greatly from other communities in rules and moderation. Just want to make Polandball's image across the internet more clear, as I am a verified Polandball Artist and just wanted to go cleaning up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BattlePig101 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Krautchan

"Krautchan.net is a German-language imageboard whose /int/ board is frequented by English-speaking netizens." KC doesn't exist anymore. This should be changed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.222.25.219 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2019

1. The word "color" appears once and the word "colour" appears once. Please change one to the other. It shouldn't matter which one you change.
2. Please replace "can not" with "cannot" because it's a more usual form.
3. Please replace "An example of a Polandball comic which is an extension" with "This Polandball comic is an extension" because it's simpler.

208.95.51.53 (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done, except for #3; per MOS:CAPTION, captions should generally be sentence fragments where reasonable to do so. I did tighten the wording just a bit though. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Ehm

No countryyball but countryballs :) KRUSKANDOL (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

-Ball Genre

Hello, this is my first time on the "Talk" page. I want to add a section on comic series inspired by Polandball that are about other subjects. For Example: Polandall-style comics that are about Political Ideologies, Corporations, Topics within fandoms, Planets and additionally the "country-humans" subculture which is a take on Polandball that makes it a bit more flamboyant by adding a body (and a mouth) to countryballs. Would this be acceptable? Kanclerz K-Tech (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC) User:Kanclerz K-Tech

"Chinaball" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chinaball. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist #WearAMask😷 16:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"Confederateball" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Confederateball. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist #WearAMask😷 16:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"Denmarkball" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Denmarkball. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist #WearAMask😷 16:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"Irelandball" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Irelandball. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist #WearAMask😷 16:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"Mongoliaball" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mongoliaball. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist #WearAMask😷 16:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"North Koreaball" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect North Koreaball. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist #WearAMask😷 16:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The picture with the caption "A group of Polandball characters" should be fixed.

1) Should we change the picture? It breaks the drawing rules on the Reddit and the Polandball Fandom/Wiki/thing (Under Editing, Uploading Images and Making Pages, two of the biggest Polandball-related websites out there. Specifically, the no tools (such as line tool and circle tool), and no copy-pasting anything rules were broken.

A map of the world would probably work a lot better. Examples being the Official Polandball World Maps from 2019 and 2018.

But then again, this is Wikipedia and those probably won't count here, would they?

2) "Polandball characters" should be changed to countryballs, the widely-accepted term for grouping characters in the Polandball meme. SixSixtieth (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@SixSixtieth: We don't have those specific rules, but we do care about copyright, and copy-pasting may infringe on those. But you'd have to show the image that is infringed upon (copied from). Feel free to edit the article and add better images or such. Note that most images are hosted at Wikimedia Commons, a semi-separate site, where images are discussed if they need to be deleted or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

pollen cannot in to space — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beikkan67 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

Unofficial polandball discord server https://discord.gg/dJj4AU5 SpinyKitsune (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done Wikipedia is not for promoting fan websites. Passengerpigeon (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Add youtubers that make polandball videos

I think we should add gylala & others. Heystuff (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

We can add them if there are valid references.

-Edited by User:Ahthga Yram, midnight of December 22, 2020 (in PH) — Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Name change?

Polandballs are more commonly known as countryballs now, so I would think a name change would be needed.

No need of name change.

-Edited by Ahthga Yram, December 22, 2020 (in PH). Ahthga Yram (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be changed to countryballs because everyone calls them countryballs now. Sahaib3005 (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2021

Where It talks about the german empire being ReichTangle, this is wrong. ReichTangle is a representation of the 4th Reich. 24.101.172.87 (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Well then please provide a source so this information can be corrected based on more than the words of a random person on the internet. I'll go ahead and trim most of the unsourced bits. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki

Someone add Fandom deleted Polandball Wiki, which has more than 10,000 pages, due to concerns of racism? --121.99.141.13 (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Less focus on Poland in modern comics

While I'm not completely convinced that the name of the article needs to be changed, the Polandball article places an entirely undue amount of importance on the early, Poland-mocking comics, rather than the overwhelming majority of modern comics about international geopolitics and stereotypes. All the sources are from 2014 at the latest. The whole article could use a revamp to keep up with the times, as claiming it's still mostly about Poland itself just isn't very accurate. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: According to Google Trends the only big country where Countryball(s) is so way more common name than Polandball is Brazil, meanwhile the only big country where Polandball is so way more common name is Japan. I belive this can not be accident. Article include information that Japanese company Nintendo created game titled "Polandball" few years ago. I think this article could include information that name "Polandball(s)" has been also popularised by Brazilian game service Agar.io (this service was popular in 2014. 2014 is also year when there was FIFA World Cup in Brazil and PT:Polandball something mention about that but does not mention about Aar.io). Agar.io probably should be shortly linked in that article because of many people first heard about that (and about Wojak) meme from that game. pl:Polandball has proportionally way more information about other countries but article is less sourced (though on the other hand sources IMHO are quite good there, this was challenging to defend article on PLwiki when was frequently reporting to Afd) Dawid2009 (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: I wasn't disagreeing with you - I'm actually neutral on whether changing the name is a good idea or not, mainly because I don't really have that much time to spend engaged in discussion and I don't want to waste people's time. My comment was just noting the undue focus the article places on very early, 2010-era Polandball where the entire joke was just mocking Poland, and how modern usage of the style has encompassed a broader range of topics for years now. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 September 2021

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.

4 editors (including the proposer) support this move, and provide search engine results and RSs to support this per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. 2 editors oppose the move (HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith having withdrawn their opposition), apparently per WP:PRECISE, but I'm unable to follow their reasoning. Accordingly, I find a consensus to move. (non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Polandball → Countryballs – lorem ipsum Gaioa (T C L) 16:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC) The name has shifted over the years. Most existing sources are a few years old, but presently the format clearly known by the latter name. Google results are 1.2M vs 3.5M, Google News results are 1k vs 4k. Gaioa (T C L) 16:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support countryballs is the common name for this now in popular culture. I know this because I am father of a kid who is obsessed with them. And in case an argument based on personal experience isn't valid, the Google search hits agree. Mr248 (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Years ago Polandball was more common/right name for that "stuff"/"Internet phenomen". Based on statistics which we can observe at Google trends for images we can say that this accident can qualify to Wikipedia:Name changes. Maybe this is not the best comprasion but calling it Polandball in 2021 is apart like calling nk.pl still as nasza-klasa today. Personally I do not think it is too early to change title of the article and personally I think the name "countryballs" is right with current content of the article. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Should be more neutral/less controversial too (but I guess the controversy petered out years ago anyway as this shifted from making fun of one country to making fun of all them...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think Google search results are a valid argument here, because 'country balls' or 'countryballs' might just be turning up unrelated objects or toys. As far as I can tell, every popular board dedicated to the style calls them by the name 'Polandball,' with the word 'countryballs' mainly used when referring to multiple characters (ie: "I drew a couple of countryballs"). Without actual reliable sources, I don't see grounds for a move. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: Please see the paper doi:10.1016/j.dcm.2018.03.010 which is a high quality reliable source (an article in a peer-reviewed journal from a respected academic publisher, Discourse, Context & Media) which uses both "Countryballs" and "Polandball", but prefers to use "Countryballs" as the name for the art style as a whole, and reserve "Polandball" as the name of the specific Facebook page which played a big role in originally popularising the style. Allow me to quote the second last paragraph of their introduction section (emphasis is mine not theirs):

  Meme pages such as POLANDBALL or Polandball 2.0 might be viewed as ‘light communities’ (Blommaert and Varis 2015, p. 54) i.e. focused but diverse occasioned coagulations of people that converge around a shared focus, be it an object, a game, another person, an event, or, as in this case, a shared interest – creating, sharing, appropriating, and evaluating a particular type of internet memes, namely geopolitical satire memes known as Countryballs or Polandball² comics. Countryball comics appear in a very simple, easy-to-draw format featuring ball-shaped characters in colours denoting both contemporary and historical states/countries/regions, while the narrative usually revolves around reinterpreting and reinventing geopolitical events and international relations in a satirical manner, mostly by drawing on national and socio-cultural stereotypes. Throughout its history, the Countryball format has kept its recognizable communicative patterns and scripts based on the reiteration of these stereotypes, which represent a set of communicative resources that are available for meaning making, identity work, and managing interpersonal relationships (power relations). Despite the plain design of the Countryball format, it therefore contains within it a differential inequality that is exploited by ‘vigilantes’ as a normative benchmark. Participants of course differ in the degree of their access to such resources and the historical trajectories through which these resources acquire specific functions and values (Blommaert, 2010), hence their communicative input might prompt vigilant gatekeepers into action if it is viewed as insufficient or not in line with expected communicative competence

  As the emphasised parts make clear, the authors consider "Countryballs" and "Polandball" as interchangeable names for the genre, but they prefer "Countryballs" over "Polandball". They also explain in their footnote 2 that "The present study prefers the term ‘Countryballs’ instead of ‘Polandball’ in order to avoid confusion with the name of the actual Facebook meme page". However, putting aside their desire to avoid such confusion, I still think they would not have written a paper repeatedly calling the art style "Countryballs" if that was not a widely accepted name for it. This paper is a quality reliable source which supports the evidence of Google hits and also various editor's anecdotal experience (including my own). Mr248 (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Addendum: Here is another journal article, doi:10.1017/S0047404519000812. If you read this one, you will find out they exclusively call the art style "Countryballs", and never once call it "Polandball". They reserve "Polandball" as the name for (1) the Facebook page, (2) the countryball for Poland. So that's two academic papers calling the art style "Countryballs", one of which acknowledges "Polandball" as an alternative name for the art style, the other not doing so. Mr248 (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Mr248 I see your point. I realize now that the title is referring to the style of drawing in general. I rescind my opposition. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. To lead, if we look at the hits on Wikipedia; the "Countryballs" redirect page has 117 hits in the last 30 days, while the "Polandballs" page has 18,000. Meanwhile, most articles discussing this use "Polandball" rather than "Countryball". Finally, while internet searches do reveal slightly more results for the later, the numbers are sufficiently large that WP:GOOGLELIMITS come into play, and is not particularly useful in this case. BilledMammal (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  I am not sure what you do mean. Of course redirect "Countryballs" gets more hists than redirect "Polandballs". I also do not think WP:GOOGLELIMITS apply much here. According to WP:Name changes the most important thing are reliable sources. Countryballs gets slightly better results in Google Scholar for 2017-2021, and the most reliable source used in the article (Reference number 13, book from 2017) uses "Countryballs" as wider and primary concept. Changing name would not be recentism especially if we take into fact that at least in "YouTube community" countryballs have been common name since 2013. I do not consider myself as authority of the subject but I will note that Piotrus who has educational backgrounds related with "sociology of the Internet" supports the move. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  BilledMammal, the number of page hits doesn't really tell us anything, given that if I type "Countryballs" into Google, the first result is to this article. You can't tell if someone clicking on the "Polandball" article got there by searching "Countryballs" or "Polandball" or by searching something else or by not searching at all. Google Trends shows that, globally, "Countryballs" has been the more popular search term most of the time over the last 12 months. Here is their data by year:

Worldwide Google Trends "Countryballs" vs "Polandball" by Year

Year	Countryballs	Polandball
2021	75	42
2020	67	44
2019	61	57
2018	45	64
2017	35	69
2016	20	70
2015	11	66
2014	11	54
2013	5	41

So the Google Trends data very much supports the picture that "Polandball" used to be the most popular name for this, but in the last couple of years "Countryballs" has overtaken it. Which I think supports the move request. Mr248 (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – To add onto the above arguments opposing the move, the name "countryballs" is definitely used conventionally by online users when creating a single 'cartoon' comprising many countries (or balls), but not necessarily 'official', nor was it the original founding name. Per Wikipedia:Article titles, article titles are to bear recognizable names – in this instance, Polandball and countryballs are both widely recognized. However, per WP:CRITERIA, "countryballs" lacks the precision part, and is rather oblique and wide-ranging. I think the current lead entry is explanatory. Perhaps when the name "Polandball" is discontinued, then this discussion/vote will re-emerge. Merangs (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2021 (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.

Country humans?

Apparently there is a sub community that is part of The whole country balls thing. It’s called country humans. Why is it not mentioned here.CycoMa (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Because this is not a countryhumans page, but i wish it exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkie257 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I might try looking for sources on country humans later on.CycoMa1 (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Polandball image

Moved from User talk:Yeeno § Regarding the Polandball image

 – Moving so others can chime is as well. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 05:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• 
  Old version
• 
  New SVG version

I noticed you reverted my edit changing the image back to the old one. I realize the .svg file is higher "quality", but it's a well-established feature of Polandball comics to have the art drawn in the shaky-mouse, amateurish style that the original image had. Changing the image to a more professional-looking image misses the point, in my opinion.

Sources:

From the front page of the official Polandball Reddit: "Wiggly mouse-drawn comics where balls represent different countries"

Rules page: "Comics should look like they are made in MS Paint! It doesn’t matter what program you use but comics should still look like they are “wiggly mouse drawn comics” made in MS Paint. We can tell if you used a tablet or a mobile app."

From https://culture.pl/en/article/polandball-a-case-study: "[The original creator of the first Polandball image] used basic MS Paint tools to draw a ball resembling an inverted Polish flag. [...] The countryballs are all limbless and featureless, hand-sketched with a brush tool, giving them a pitifully handmade look."

From http://www.krakowpost.com/9279/2015/05/how-polandball-can-of-taking-over-internets: "In 2009, British user FALCO posted a series of comics featuring the crudely drawn, grammatically atrocious, incorrectly colored circle character [...] Are they shallow stereotypes? Yes. Do they look like they were drawn by a six-year-old? That’s part of the joke."

In my opinion, the new image fails to convey the actual style of the comics. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: I understand your concern regarding the "handmade" drawing style, which is crucial to polandball comics. However, I believe the SVG still properly illustrates this style. The ball is still handdrawn and does not break any of the conventions set out in the "official polandball tutorial". It is also consistent with many of the comics posted on the Subreddit today, where the countryballs are drawn as 3D objects (not flat like the previous version), with some having shadows. See Ex 1 and Ex 2. Nonetheless, if you feel the shadows and the shading are a bit too much, I can probably edit the SVG to remove them. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 05:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Yeeno: I see. I mainly just object to removing the original image entirely, since it leaves out a lot of the earlier style. As a bit of an in-between measure, I propose keeping the new image in its place at the top, but putting the original image into the Background section, as it nicely represents how that era of the format looked, and the section could do with some images. Does that sound good? --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: Sure! We can call it a "Polandball drawn in MS Paint" or something, since it was drawn in 2018 to emulate the early style. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 21:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep old one: This is the classic and most well known image. Removing it would just be unnecessary.Dunutubble (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

add a section for unusual countryballs

Someone should add a section for countryballs that are not shaped like a ball like israel and kazakhstan

Poopykibble (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Exceptions are already listed in the brackets of the first sentence. Wikipedia is just a summary about the topic, it doesn't need to go into details of why these countryballs aren't spherical. People who want that kind of information will go to Polandball Wiki instead. -Vipz (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

ok sorry

Poopykibble (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Poor name

Now, this is mainly just food for thought, not an actual move proposal. But I have never, ever heard someone seriously refer to this a a "countryball". In fact, the fandom really hates the term "countryball" to describe the whole idea. See Polandball Wiki or r/polandball to understand what I mean.

I've been interested in this subject for a long time, and I think that the title betrays a lack of actual knowledge on the subject. The Adventures of Tintin have more than one character than the one suggested in its title, but that doesn't mean we have to change the article name. Dunutubble (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree about "polandball" being prevalent inside the fandom, but "countryball" is a more catch-all and neutral term (and has far more results on Google). I'd prefer the title to stay. -Vipz (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. Also, several prevalent people in the community call it countryballs often too. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 21:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Companyballs"

@Cranloa12n: I don't think a Reddit source should be used here, especially to justify something's inclusion. Since the notability guideline doesn't cover noteworthiness, I will refer to WP:DUE, which says "articles should represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources".

Reddit is not a reliable source, so "Companyballs" shouldn't be worth mentioning. After all, if it was, we'd have to list every single "ball" with a Subreddit, which would be unsustainable. This means that the "Planetballs" paragraph should also be removed. Yeeno (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

honestly I cannot refute this. This is just true. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 23:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I also agree. There are many spin-offs of countryballs and they're simply not noteworthy. Even countryballs are somewhat obscure in reliable sources. -Vipz (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Poland can into the European Space Agency.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Shapes

Some Polandballs/Countryballs are not balls. Examples include Tringapore (Singapore triangle), Kazakhstanbrick (Kazakhstan rectangle), Nepalrawr (Nepal shaped like its flag 🇳🇵) and Israelcube (Israel cube). Why is this not section on the page? 86.12.230.89 (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It's literally in the first sentence: "(there are some exceptions, such as Nepal, Israel, Kazakhstan, Singapore, Bermuda, etc.)". -Vipz (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2022

Jieeunjed (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Dear Wikipedia,

       I, Jieeunjed, also the member of the Countryball Community, wanted to make some more Countryball Articles, Pages and Edits.

I know Countryball is a meme, so we can make them laugh some more comics and interest in every Countryball Pages in this website.

                                                                                                            -The new editor,
                                                                                                                    Jieeunjed.Jieeunjed (talk) 10:21, 12 August 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. If you plan on creating more articles on Countryballs, you'll have to do it in more appropriate wikis, i.e. Polandball Wiki. -Vipz (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2022

There are multiple issues 64.8.142.227 (talk) 14:53, 5 October 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Request to edit

i have been seeing issues with it HOI4 is nice (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• There is no specific request here. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  oh,ok sorry HOI4 is nice (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2022

As a member of the countryball community myself I am asking to edit to fix some errors it seems to have to must have a "neutral" point of view and not just only one person's point of view and the Article must be a to make this article a more reliable source

I AMURICA YEAH (talk) 13:57, 17 October 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2022

Change 'dialog' to 'dialogue' KingZong (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Yg While that could've been done, I instead tried to improve the sentence altogether, removing the word. Is that alright? -Vipz (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

biased source and offensive

and Polish propensity for telling tales of the glorious past.

This reads better. Source material for 'dim-witted poles' is biased and offensive and ONLY one person's view which has already been mentioned by previous people. Too much emphasis on Poland - the wikipedia title is Countryballs. 2403:4800:341F:E345:54C3:23CA:C2EF:6F05 (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2023

Yes, the Poland countryball exists, but it isn't like a "main character" of this comic format. All these things that are told about Poland are just sometimes/rarely the case, so this article focuses too much on poland. Iguess2222 (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2023 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

There isn’t a penticton b.c. Ball

We need one. Superfluffygamergirl (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

If you don’t know penticton’s flag look it up Superfluffygamergirl (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2022

Change the "Countryballs, also known as Polandball" to just "Countryballs" and just remove the 3.1 of just Polandball and the constant referencing of Polandball, because countryballs is not mainly Poland in any way, and nothing has changed although it is a fairly-large community, it simply makes no sense to mention Polandball as though it were the main character in a TV show/movie. And it isn't even the most popular Countryball. ARMYgeddon (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Aoidh (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Countryballs is also known as Polandball. 2603:8001:3C06:49D0:4E09:D4FF:FE9F:2CB8 (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

we know 2A00:23C6:BE86:B401:C817:F634:7B06:CD42 (talk) 07:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2023

Chile is sometimes drawn as a snake Java Dog123 (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2023 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Chile is long 2A00:23C6:BE86:B401:C817:F634:7B06:CD42 (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"Polandball" vs. "Countryballs"

I have seen this edit happen back and forth and see a discussion backlog that warrants a dedicated topic.

I am referring to the name of this Wikipedia page. It has previously been "Polandball" and has to my knowledge shifted between that and "Countryballs" with the second name being referenced in the first sentence of the page.

"Polandball" has been the name established by history and is mainly the name to describe the original meme itself. The original Facebook page that has been operational since 2009 which is also the largest Polandball page is called Polandball. The subreddit that currently has (arguably) the largest active and organized fanbase and has been active since 2011 goes by the name Polandball. KnowYourMeme has since 2010 always referred to the meme by the name Polandball. The largest and most popular fandom Wiki for the subject is called Polandballwiki. For academia, the term Polandball has a larger presence than the term countryballs (more examples and better definitions can be drawn from a subset of peer-reviewed articles here).

It is only in recent times that the term "countryballs" has seen a growth and overtaking in popularity. One point of support is the Google Trends page (although one can wonder if the change on this very page influences that?).

Even in the context of "Countryballs" the main character and mascot (e.g. logo) still is Poland. An example is the CountryBalls Heroes video game, countryballs.net, countryballsshop, and mostly anything you can find related to "countryballs".

As the article itself currently states, the origin of the meme was in a context of satirizing Poland, hence "Polandball". So the question is if we want to use the later, modern, and more generalized term "countryballs" instead? Zimonitrome (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

A special Countryballs celebration for the 15th Anniversary in 2024

Guys, 2024 is 4 months away, and it will be a very special time for Countryballs as it will be the 15th Anniversary of Polska time! Are you willing to celebrate this memorable event? If so, then how will you be celebrating it with? A special comic? A special animation? 88.18.218.231 (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2023

Thai-khmer learn (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

the new file is ugly and the old file is good

 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. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2023

Change "Exceptions are Kazakhstan, Nepal, Singapore, Israel, Chile, and others, who are drawn with other shapes." to "Exceptions are Kazakhstan, Nepal, Singapore, Israel, Chile, Ohio, and others, who are drawn with other shapes." In the Notes Section. Lobear14126969 (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NotAGenious (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2023

I wanna edit the countryballs page, and i also edit on the Polandball wiki, so I have experience. LWHimGame (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 15:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2023

Minecraft812 (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Add Older image in infobox

 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. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 22:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks better with the older image the newer image looks bad Minecraft812 (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

This is it https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Countryballs_polish_flag.png Minecraft812 (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you User:Colton2022 by any chance? Deauthorized. ^(talk) 00:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Nope Minecraft812 (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)