Talk:List of webcomics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WWW

This article is part of WikiProject Webcomics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to webcomics on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article List of webcomics, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
NA This non-article page has been rated as NA-Class on the assessment scale.
Votes for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 12, 2004. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on October 24, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

List of web comics proposed inclusion guidelines

Current proposed web comic inclusion guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:Web comics. Web comics that do not meet these guidelines may be at risk of removal from the list (and possibly from Wikipedia) in the future.

Given that not a single date or name of a creator appears in this list, I find the intro paragraph a bit confusing... -- Delirium 06:13 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Dates can most likely be acquired (Should we do it?). Though I was wondering that myself a while back... -- Pipian

I removed the following introductory paragraph, which could be reinstated if dates and cartoonist names are ever included in the article body. -- RossA 00:28, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The dates shown after a name relate to the period during which the comic appeared. There is usually a fair degree of accuracy about the starting date, but because of rights being transferred or the very gradual loss of appeal of a particular strip the termination date is often very uncertain.
The names shown refer to the originators of the character; many have continued to be created by others over time. It is also to be noted that many of the characters appeared in both strip and book format as well as in other media.

Don't like the fact that numerical entries go before A. It's become commonplace in computer-sorted lists, but "real" encyclopedias don't do it. Lee M 05:08, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

BTW there is a temp page at Talk:List of web comics/temp/article -- User:Docu

Hmmm. The current list has about 100 comics listed. Making a page with a hundred sections, where the content of most sections is just the section title... Do you mean to only list the comics for which there's already a Wiki-article, and move the content from the not-big-enough articles to the list page? -- Khym Chanur 06:10, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Looking for Hosers

I've recently started reading "GPF" and there was a cross-over between this and another comic named the "Hosers" in February 2000. However the latter appears to be unavailable (it used to live at http://www.hosers.org/ which is not responding): anyone know where to find it? Phil 12:29, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

Hi! http://www.HOSERS.org - "HOSERS: The Comic Strip" is alive and well. This is Aric, the artist. We've had some lapses in the update schedule recently, but we're not dead. By the way, the HOSERS-GPF Comics crossover was completed with a "part 2" on our site last year, beghinning at http://hosers.org/archive/20040515.html Thank you for reading!

[edit] policy on non-existing comics?

MyTVcomic links to a yahoo group that has no comics and only 7 messages. Google of MyTVcomic finds only wikipedia and derived sites. Google groups and images each return nothing.

I suggest we move such dead links to Talk:List_of_web_comics/waiting_existence_proof.

Maybe we also need Talk:List_of_web_comics/existence_proof to store references to the proof we do find. Wikibob 23:24, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Oldest known web comic still running: Kevin and Kell details at List of web comics#K

  • Actually, it's Doctor Fun... since 1993 and still going; it was the very first comic on the web. (And my favorite, incidentally.) Mindspillage 18:15, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

List of comics to track down:

  • When I am King by demian.5 ( http://www.demian5.com/ ) a graphic novel in 5 chapters, no text, semi-animated in 64 panels. Needs frames.

Wikibob 00:40, 2004 Mar 4

"When I am King" should definitely have its own page :-) Peter S. 13:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Getting example strips

I'm trying to get permission to use (under the FDL) samples from the most popular of these web comics. If you want you can help me by writing to the authors of strips and logging it here. Here's the email I use:

Hi XY,
I am one of the many, many people working on the Wikipedia encyclopedia (www.wikipedia.org). Maybe you've heard of it before; basically we're trying to collaboratively create an encyclopedia that can be freely copied and modified by everyone. I'm a great fan of webcomics, and I'm trying to make the articles about webcomics on Wikipedia richer by adding example artwork to each of them.
We respect other people's copyrights, and we can only use images if they're under a free license or in the public domain, so I would like to ask you to "donate" one of your comic strips to Wikipedia under the GNU FDL. That means that you still get full credit for it, but others can copy and modify it as long as they retain that credit and make their modifications freely available as well ("copyleft"). That would of course only apply to this single image file.
My favorite strip to use would probably be this one:
http://xyz
(insert note about why you think the strip is representative about the comic as a whole)
Please let me know if you'd be willing to donate this strip, or any other, to the "creative commons", or if you have any reservations which I might be able to address.
All best, and thanks for creating such a great comic in the first place,
your name

People I've written to so far:

  • Chris of Achewood
  • Stephen Notley of Bob the Angry Flower
  • Owen Dunne of "You Damn Kid!"
  • Brian Clevinger of 8 Bit Theater
  • Chris of Superosity
  • R. Stevens of Diesel Sweeties
  • Jeff of Wigu.com
  • Mike of Penny Arcade
  • D.C. of Ozy and Millie
  • John Allison of Scary Go Round
  • "Hard" of Sexy Losers
  • Tatsuya of Sinfest

If you want to write to anyone else, please announce it here first so we avoid duplicate work. Feel free to use my example text.

So far I've got a positive response from Brian Clevinger of 8BT, no negative response yet. I intend to add the positive ones to the email text to sway other artists.—Eloquence 10:19, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Good idea Eloquence, I've just emailed:
  • Christopher Baldwin of Bruno
with an slightly modified email. -Wikibob 23:08, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)

[edit] list concerns

I'm becoming kinda concerned about this list. Are we just going to allow every 14-year-old with a webcomic to list their site here? Or is there going to be any standard? I mean, I don't even know half of the webcomics on the list and the new ones added I'd never be able to verify in a million years.

Reason being, a lot of webcomics (especially the small ones) would not be encyclopedic as a stand-alone article, but yet, we're writing the list as if an article should be created for all of these. What happens when a brand-new comic uses Wikipedia as a jumping point to generate traffic?

Just some thoughts. RadicalBender 13:55, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove all red links, so that people aren't quite so tempted to make pages for every comic they come across. We should definitely keep them listed, as it is a "list of web comics", but we should only allow articles for notable comics - ones that are consistently mentioned within webcomic circles (Penny Arcade comes to mind here, as does Megatokyo), or that are very high in respected Top-Webcomics lists such as the Buzzcomix.net's top ten. PMC 10:07, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Have to agree, have started removing red links. Might have been me that did the wikifying (too much history to wade through!), when I was still wiki-learning. My intention was when I had spare time to expand the entries here with: author's name and approximate dates. If I find an existing article, I'll link to it.Wikibob 14:55, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)

If it doesn't deserve a stand-alone article, it doesn't deserve being listed here either. Lists are a way to categorize Wikipedia articles, they are not articles in themselves. See Wikipedia is not, #11, #12. You wouldn't have people on the List of painters who are not encyclopedic either. Without articles this is a link directory, which is not acceptable.

So don't unlink non-notable comics, just remove them.—Eloquence 15:07, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Which, in addition those with articles, should appear in this notable list? My tastes do not fit the usual webcomic reader, the ones I read daily are: Bruno, Bruno the Bandit, Scary go Round and Wigu.

The ones I recognise are:

Bruno by Christopher Baldwin 
Bruno the Bandit by Ian McDonald
Chopping Block by Lee Adam Herold
Diesel Sweeties by R. Stevens
Freefall by Stanley
Gene Catlow by Albert Temple
Gneral Protection Fault by Geoffrey Darlington
Goats by Jonathan Rosenberg
Helen
Kevin and Kell by Bill Holbrook
Livingingreytown by Dave Kelly
Megatokyo
One over Zero
Scary Go Round (previously Bobbins) by John Allison
Sluggy Freelance by Pete Abrams
Superosity
User Friendly
WIGU

But I see many marked as favourite on Belfry's list that could be just as notable to another reader. I just don't want to be the one that decides. Wikibob 16:55, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)

Well, there are two options here. Either we define some criteria for inclusion now - Google hits, links, Alexa traffic ranking, being listed on some "top 100" page etc. - or we leave the links in. Removing pages arbitrarily will just mean that everyone keeps their favorite comics in the list. I think you should re-add the links until there are clear criteria for inclusion.—Eloquence 17:08, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

OK, proposal. This is two-fold. The most important goal here would be to prevent Wikipedia from helping to popularize new and unencyclopedic webcomics, right? So, let's try this:

  1. Any site with a domain and an Alexa ranking of, say, 250,000 or above (that should be enough to keep moderately-popular webcomics while eliminating chaff). Exceptions:
    • Sites in transition (like to another domain name - e.g., Tsunami Channel, whose new domain name puts them at a ranking of about two million)
    • New webcomics created by already established artists (e.g., Girly created by Josh Lesnick who created CuteWendy or if Piro ever puts Warmth online) - this would be determined by Alexa ranking of existing comic.
  2. One problem with this system is with Keenspace comics. Alexa treats all Keenspace subdomains equally, so they all have the same ranking. To weed out the chaff here, I recommend we go based on longevity, since over half of the Keenspace comics are effectively dead. The comic has to have been "active" (which needs defining) for more than a year and a half.

What do you think? Needs some revising. RadicalBender 17:46, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A truly fair definition of "active" would require a heuristic taking into account gaps between updates, relative size of updates, comic size, vacation allowances, and filler postings.
But that's too much work, so why not just go with raw comic count? Say, one per week, or about 70 over the proposed 18-month minimum lifespan. It's a simple metric, and also ensures that the comic has enough content for a bare-minimum description page. -- Cyrius 20:01, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Proposal looks good, I've done some Alexa ranks, and Keenspace won't be a problem as Alexa shows the % of the top 20 keenspace comics, and only 5-6 get an equivalent rank of 250,000.

See a full list of Alex-ified webcomic URLs is at User:Wikibob/todo; here are selected Alexa results (reach is 3 month average). Large numbers are the traffic rankings.

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=brunothebandit.com

brunothebandit.com:  168,242  reach is 9.8

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=genecatlow.com

genecatlow.com:    194,934  reach is 7.7

brunostrip.com:    378,875  reach is 3.1
10kcommotion.com:  311,432
scarygoround.com:   54,707  reach is 27.5
wigu.com:           67,348  reach is 21.5
sluggy.com:         16,496  reach is 96

keenspace.com:  5,796  reach is 170 users per million, of those:
 17% go to sexyloser, so that's 20 users per million
  6% go to elfonlyinn.keenspace.com, or 10 users per million

other keenspace destinations:
flem.keenspace.com ~ 4% 
thedevilspanties.keenspace.com ~ 3% -- or 5 users per million
techfox.keenspace.com ~ 3% 
utlt.keenspace.com ~ 2% -- or 3-4 users per million, approx 250,000 ranking

From these figures I would choose a ranking of 200,000 or a reach of 7.5 users per million. This knocks out Bruno (boohoo), but keeps Bruno the Bandit. I wouldn't argue with a lower ranking of 100,000 to keep the list smaller still. Of course, if a webcomic already has an article this is all moot. Wikibob 20:21, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)

[edit] List restrictions

So, do we have an agreement about the inclusion guidelines, or what? -- Cyrius 03:46, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. This should probably be extended into a separate article in the Wikipedia: namespace (like, for now Wikipedia:Web comics) so that the rules also apply to the creation of articles (as webcomics come up a lot on VfD). RADICALBENDER★ 22:51, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In fact, I think I'll just do it myself. :) RADICALBENDER★ 22:54, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category

This list should be transformed into the already existing, but incomplete Category:Web comics - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:31, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of un-wikilinked entries

This is probably going to make me unpopular, but so be it. I deleted all entries that did not link to articles. And yes, that included comics I read and like. Wikipedia is not a links repository, and the inclusion of external links to obscure webcomics without articles bordered on Wikispam. It'd gotten so bad that one of the submitters at Comixpedia simply assumed when looking at it that that was what the article was for. I didn't bother checking Alexia rankings. I figure that's a criterion for getting an article—and if somebody does create an article for any of the deleted entries and re-adds the entry, great—but until then it shouldn't be here.

I considered deleting all external links too, but decided that it wasn't worth it after dropping the un-wikilinked ones. - Gwalla 05:01, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Most of the comics that got tossed deserved it, but there's some that seem to have been collateral damage. I may re-add the ones I'm familiar with after writing stubs for them to link to. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:20, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
That'd be great! Yeah, there were definitely some entries I deleted that deserve articles, but I figured that if drastic action wasn't taken it'd never get fixed—nobody is going to go entry-by-entry, checking Alexa rankings for each comic. I could've wikilinked the ones I recognized as important, but I thought I might be accused of favoritism so I didn't. - Gwalla 17:57, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Although Bruno [1] has an Alexa ranking way below the suggested mininum, it did have a lengthy crossover with Helen, Sweetheart of the Internet, which is now syndicated in actual printed newspapers. A piece of trivia like that probably makes it notable enough to include. -Sean Curtin 05:54, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think Bruno may have been explicitly mentioned as a comic justifying an exception to the traffic-based guidelines. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:02, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...it looks like my mass-deletion wasn't as effective as I'd hoped. People aren't adding entires that are just external links with no wikilinks to articles—they're adding entries that are just external links with wikilinks to nonexistent articles that they have no intention of writing and that will probably never get written. Argh. - — G↭a⇅a | Talk 20:49, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've removed all of the red links, even to ones I've personally heard of or read. Old list is still in history [2] so if someone wants to created articles for all of the removed entries they're welcome to do so... -Sean Curtin 01:54, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think entries should be deleted based on the criterion that there is not a article attached to them. There are a few reasons. First, other less biased critera has been created to able a decision to be made on weather or not a comic should be included or not. This should be followed. If one doesn't feel like checking if a comic meets the critera let it be untill another does. Second, leaving in notable comics that don't have articles could inspire another wikipedian to create articles for them. Third, doing so makes the list biased, arbitrary & incomplete. ZaQ 23:05, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Excellent points, I used to feel the same way, but I realized that this list needs to be pruned or else it will be useless due to sheer length. If someone feels that a webcomic deserves inclusion, all they have to do is create a stub article. Gamaliel 14:04, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Gamaliel. The criteria should be for determining whether a given comic deserves an article, and the one criterion for inclusion in the list should be the existence of an article. Having to write a stub doesn't seem like too onerous a requirement — Gwalla | Talk 00:33, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rethinking this

When this article was on VFD, the policy of removing entries for comics without articles was criticized as being somewhat anti-wiki. And, well, I can kind of see the point there. However, I still think there needs to be some way of discouraging people from using the list for promotion. How about allowing articleless entries, but removing external links? — Gwalla | Talk 01:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the point of eliminating external links. It would make the list less useful while doing little to achieve a goal (discouraging promotion) that really isn't that significant.
I'm not sure if this sort of idea is kosher on wikipedia, but perhaps 2 lists? One for comics with articles, one for comics without. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Cubaflag15.gif]] 08:39, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that'd accomplish, besides making it more difficult to maintain. And I think discouraging the use of Wikipedia as a promotional tool is significant, since it's an abuse of the system. — Gwalla | Talk 04:12, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bruno and Christopher Baldwin

For a long time I felt Bruno and Christopher Baldwin deserved an article, and here's my first attempt. It's a single article for Christopher Baldwin for now with a Bruno redirect. I'm no writer so it needs care and attention. Also it needs mention of crossovers with other well-known webcomics, and maybe a paragraph on the life stages Bruno herself has passed through. My emailed request to use an excerpt of the comic from March has had no reply.

As to what criteria should be used for inclusion, I'm now of the opinion that only existing articles should be here, or more strongly, that once the list has been converted to categories and any information (dates and external links) saved into the respective articles, then the list is not needed. So I think it's good what Sean Curtis did, it finally prodded me to write something. -Wikibob | Talk 00:30, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)

[edit] Toon inclusion query

I came across the Wikipedia entry on webcomics and would like to include "PC Weenies" as part of the list. While traffic is not as high as some of the more visible cartoons (Penny Arcade, PvP), it should be important to note that the cartoon has been running from 1998 onwards and has a generally large following. It's appeared on CNet (do a search on their site) and is currently published in print by EE Times, the largest electrical engineering magazine in the world. The site is currently being transitioned (if you visit the site now), but it should be up on July 26th. Kms007 13:42, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It seems to be generally believed that this list should only contain comics that already have Wikipedia articles about them -- if you feel the comic deserves an article (which it probably does) then by all means write one about it! And *then* add it to the list. :-) Aris Katsaris 13:48, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Aris. A wikipage for Pcweenies has now been created. Kms007 15:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is the title of the comic "Pcweenies", "PC Weenies", or "The PC Weenies"? — Gwalla | Talk 16:42, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is titled "The PC Weenies" on the actual comics. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:18, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's "The PC Weenies". Sorry about that. Should I change the wikipedia entry to reflect that? Kms007 21:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Corrected it. Aris Katsaris 21:26, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Should this article go the way of the dodo?

I'm starting to think that this list is more trouble than it's worth. The information contained here is available elsewhere in Wikipedia: the start and end dates and links are (or should be) in the individual comics' articles, and the short description of webcomics duplicates material in the web comic article and the summary of Category:web comics. The actual listing can be handled by the category (anything that goes here should be in the category anyway), which has the additional advantage that a comic can only be added to the category if it has an article, saving editing time.

So, I propose that all of the comics listed here have the category link added if they don't already have it, the start/end dates be added to the appropriate articles if necessary, and this article be turned into a redirect to web comic or Category:web comics. Thoughts? — Gwalla | Talk 22:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we should abandon this list. It has its uses and provides more information at a glance than the category list. Of course, I have no objection to the web comics category, but I don't see why they can't coexist and compliment each other. Gamaliel 22:23, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The only things the category lacks are artist names, start/end dates, and external links. All are (or should be) in each comic's article. I'm not sure what this article really adds. Furthermore, the external links seem to act as an invitation for webcomic wikispam. — Gwalla | Talk 20:45, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
+Gwalla. This is one of those lists that has been eclipsed by categories. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:08, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I just went through and made sure that all of the start and end dates listed here are in the appropriate articles. I'm going to go ahead and put this page on VFD, and let the chips fall where they may. — Gwalla | Talk 01:57, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article is able to summarize information in a way categories can't, and even if its duplicated in other articles, there is no other article with such a good set of basic information. If its "more trouble than its worth", take a break from editing it, its certianly not more trouble than its worth to people reading wikipedia. Categories are a way to help organization of the 'pedia, not a replacement for lists. —siroχo 21:41, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
The list survived VfD, so I'm not going to pursue deletion any further. — Gwalla | Talk 23:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] sham wikipedia articles

the comic "Catena" links to a wikipedia article that is completly unrelated to the comic. as such, it seems to be violating the "Webcomics without a Wikipedia article will be removed from the list" criteria.

I agree. It's gone. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 01:45, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] White Ninja

I want to add White Ninja comic but I don't know the date it started. Fr3d 17:34, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you don't know the start date, I don't see why you can't add it as long as there's a wikipedia article about that comic. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 17:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] PowerPuff Girls Doujinshi

Doesn't have an article of its own - just a footnote in the main Powerpuff Girls article. Lee M 02:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi and the histories of Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi and PowerPuff Girls Doujinshi (note different capitalization) for the full story. Bo Lindbergh 04:53, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
Why was it deleted, even though there was no consensus? Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi 17:05, 2005 Jul 13 (UTC)
It wasn't deleted. It was turned into a redirect. — Gwalla | Talk 01:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomics secluded to a certain community

I have a webcomic I call "TK Rants". People hail it as one of the best and they love theml. One guy in particular archives them and wishes for a perfect collection (wow Im so popular).

But the thing is, this webcomic is based on a certain community. It isn't really for the public because some material are directed only to that certain community. My webcomic is based on my community called the TK Community, which is a community devoted to the RPGToolkit. The community has at most 200 or 300 actives who expect me to draw a comic everyday (m00chers) so it gets good hits.

I've been doing it for a year and a half now. So is it valid? - TKGB

Nope. Based merely on the fact that you (being the author) are the one proposing it is probably grounds enough to kill it in VfD (they hate vanity spam). 300 daily uniques and a year and a half is very not-impressive (odds are you have no Alexa rank with those numbers, which is a fatal blow in VfD). Nifboy 03:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
(Side note: The fact that your audience is the community of a moderately obscure program is of no concern to VfD, because it seems *every* community has its own patron webcomic) Nifboy 03:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
So your answer is no? Dang. Oh well. Good thing about this community is that it has its own Wiki. It just needs...well...articles. :P - TKGB (How does one put the date in the end?)

[edit] Requested move

Since the main article is at webcomic and not at web comic, the spelling of this article's title should be consistent with that. --Fibonacci 00:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Yeah, it should be consistent--Kiba 01:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - IMO, the spelling should be 'webcomic' wherever it appears. Ravenswood 01:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Yup, let's move it... -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 12:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Nifboy 15:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Move the other article, since "webcomic" is an unnecessary neologism not found in dictionaries. —Michael Z. 2005-08-4 16:51 Z
Comment Not all word are in the dictionary. Why is it "Unecessary neologism"? Beside, webcomic have more common useage.--Kiba 22:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Please sign your comments with ~~~~. --Fibonacci 22:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment Wiki policy says Use common names. "Webcomic" gives five times the Google pages "web comic" does, and if you type in web comic (no quotes) Google asks if you meant webcomic. Nifboy 17:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 10:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] user 71.243.144.215

beware that User: 71.243.144.215 has created entries on the list that appear to violate the terms on Wikipedia:Web_comics#Using_Alexa_Traffic. the domain name of the comics added was tested using Alexa here and the rank appears to be well below 200,000. Or was that for average hits per month? Either way, both conditions are not reached. i was going to vfd but i found it appears you guys seem pretty good about self-enforcement. -- Bubbachuck 06:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] wikilink authors

Is it ok to wikilink the author names? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:22, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

[edit] Problems to fix

Okay, having fixed up all the minor inconsistencies in the list that were bugging me, and clarifying a few dates, there are still a few outstanding problems:

  • Far too many comics have vague starting or finishing dates (or none at all, in the cases of John and John, Rehabilitating Mr. Wiggles, Reman Mythology, Rockwood (if it survives AfD, which as of this post appears unlikely), and Sev Wide Web). If possible, these should be tracked down.
    • When putting down the starting date for Sev Wide Web, I put the date of the first archived Pits comic. Admiral Memo 03:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't find a name for the creator of Elftor, and Whispered Apologies is listed as "various authors". The latter is probably as good as it'll get, given that that is, in fact, the case, but we should put something in the case of the former; it looks strange as it is.
  • I've completely changed a few start dates, based on the first archived comic I could find (You Damn Kid comes to mind, but there were at least two or three others). If anyone has some reasoning for the dates that were there before that would be cool.

And... I guess that's all that comes to mind, actually, but I'd like to hear what anybody watching this page thinks needs to be done. αγδεε (ε τ c) 04:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About the Pending Deletions...

I noticed that the article was placed on the deletion list on October 24th, and a discussion was made for the vote of such deletion (which so far has been overwhelmingly populated with Keep votes). This page mentions at the top that this article had been VFD'd on August 12th, 2004. However, that discussion has a different VFD page with similar arguments. (Note that this page was recently renamed -- see Requested move discussion). This seems a little redundant, and given the votes, I beleive that the notice can now be removed and the votes page archived. --Stux 20:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Snafu images

There have been some images added here by User:SnafuDave which all appear to come from his own comics. Personally, I've never heard of him, but I haven't really paid attention to webcomics for a while. Is he well-known?

I'm not sure what policies wikipedia has on self-promotion, and I suppose you can't really fault someone for wanting his work seen. But I'm wondering whether the comics are notable enough examples of the medium to have their pictures included, as opposed to comics like Diesel Sweeties, Goats, or a third of the comics in the "S" section.

[edit] Lots of orphaned articles added today

Well, I just spent the last 20 hours hunting down and pouring over orphaned webcomic articles and linking them up here. I've added {{webcomicsproj}} and the infobox to a bunch of them, which should make them easier to find, but I know there's still quite a few that still aren't accounted for. I think the list works better as a manifest, but cleaning up the categories would probably be a good idea. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 10:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I think I've found most of the orphans, and have the authors who have articles linked up as well. I apologize for editing it in snippets. I know it's bad form, but if I'd tried to edit all in one go I would have run into edit conflicts. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 23:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] End dates

Philosophical question (exemplified by Sexy Losers): what should be used as the end date, the date of the final installment (December 2005) or the date of the ending announcement (March 2006)? Bo Lindbergh 17:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I've been thinking about that myself. We seem to be pretty inconsistent on that issue, and I'm all over the map in implementation of it myself. For a strip like Sexy Losers, which had no regular update schedule, I'd go with the announcement. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Now that webcomics on the list are required to have a corresponding article, do we still need the external links? I wouldn't mind getting rid of some of the clutter on the page, and the information had darn well better be in the articles in question. Nifboy 2 July 2005 06:43 (UTC)

I concur, and intend removing the external links from this list, subject to any substantial opposition. -- Linkspamremover 13:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
We should keep the link to Comixpedia's list, but that's probably the only one we need. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to the external links section, but rather the external links at the end of each entry. Nifboy 16:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

External links have been removed by commenting out. I've left the external links section at the end. Nice list btw :) -- Linkspamremover 01:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

(Moved to the bottom for visibility.) I reverted it. Sorry, but I didn't mind the links and I very much do not like keeping them in as comments. I'm not entirely averse to dispensing with the links for each article, but we're going to have to give it more discussion than this. Responding to a comment from last July halfway up the page simply isn't enough. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I thought you might like to keep them as a reference for building the articles (I'm not going to check each article to see if the link has been accurately placed there). I can remove them completely in a jiffy. I understood there to be consensus that the list needed the links to disappear, and from a spam perspective they are much better gone. If you are happier with the links visible than not, I wonder if we understood each other at all. I can remove the links completely, but you will now have to be explicit. rgds. -- Linkspamremover 07:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have asked for additional input from the participants of Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics. I understand the desire to purge the list of its external links. There are a lot of them, which presents great potential for spam and 404s. However, this particular list is aggressively manicured. There are a number of dead links now, but for the most part we're aware of them and we know why they're currently offline. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Keeping the links in comments is right out. What purpose would that serve? As to keeping all the links here, I'm ambivalent. Everything should have an article we say, but what if it has a redirect? Do we keep a link here even if there isn't one in the parent article? In general I'd prefer not to have links in more than one place, but am as-yet unswayed by arguments from either camp.
brenneman{L} 12:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Removing the external links weakens the "more useful than a category" argument against deletion (see Vfd, Afd). Bo Lindbergh 12:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Bo. Perhaps we could just bracket them to the numbered format to save room? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm getting a vibe here (despite what was said earlier on this page). There seems to be enough opposition to removing the external links for me to retreat gracefully and vanquish some spam elsewhere. This list is highly unusual in keeping the external links, and I can see there are unique valid reasons. I will just mention for the record that I have strong opposition to keeping the links, informed by WP:NOT, WP:EL, and particularly m:When should I link externally - especially since each item has an article. However, I approve of the compromise of bracketing the links for aesthetic reasons, and with consensus I will gladly take this task on for you, on the understanding that this list will be monitored relentlessly by you to prevent unnecessary external links (as I'm sure it is). Let me know about that proposal, and drop me a line anytime if you change your minds about removing them completely. rgds. -- Linkspamremover 14:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I tend to agree with you on external links. In fact, in general I don't like list articles at all. However, this one has a few things going for it. It's been AfDed twice, which has instilled discipline in those who maintain it, and it's also watched closely by a WikiProject. It's come to serve as a full-blown index of Wikipedia's webcomic articles, and has proven to me that lists aren't entirely useless. Yes, it violates the MoS. I've been aware of this for a long time, in fact. However, because it's so well-maintained I've been happy to WP:IAR. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone (71.116.174.184) seems to have removed the links anyway, a couple of months after the fact. Can someone please revert the page? n.b. the aforementioned editor has made only 2 other edits, one of them 'unnecessary'. 86.144.241.72 11:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC) (EDIT) apologies, wrong user mentioned. It was in fact Tregoweth. Can someone explain the reason for the removal of the links?

  • I've reverted the changes and invited the user to discuss the matter here. Bo Lindbergh 13:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I, for one, appreciate the external links and images in the list -- it's things like that which make this list more useful than just Category:Webcomics. -- Dragonfiend 18:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Bo and Dragonfiend, but if copyright really is a concern, then we will have to remove them. We're not afforded much latitude when it comes to fair use. However, I'm skeptical having images here is a policy violation and I'd require a specific citation to accept that assessment. As far as all the external links, yes, it runs afoul of WP:MOS, but I'm going to emphatically insist on WP:IAR on this one. I think lists in general are of very marginal usefulness, but this one has a long history of being well-maintained and I'd need an extremely persuasive argument to support any sweeping change. I'm happy to lose the bolding on the author names, though; I'm not a huge fan of bold text. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with everything in the above statement. - brenneman {L} 01:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"Fair use images in lists" is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. -- Dragonfiend 15:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Authorship

When listing the authors for a webcomic, I think we should simplify it such that those that have had the more minor roles in their webcomics should be removed. Just for the sake of space more than anything else.

For instance:

L'il Mell and Sergio by Shaenon K. Garrity, Vera Brosgol, Bill Mudron and Andrew Farago 2003 – .. (http://www.girlamatic.com/series.php?name=mell)

The article for te webcomic in question says that it is written by Shannon Garrity, but worked on by "a succession of artists". Obviously Garrity would be the main author of this work. There are other articles with similar situations.

It might be better just to write:

L'il Mell and Sergio by Shaenon K. Garrity 2003 – .. (http://www.girlamatic.com/series.php?name=mell)

Any thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.57.249 (talk • contribs) .

  • Yes, that's reasonable. In the case of Li'l Mell and Sergio, I'd include also Farago since he's the current artist. Since he's her husband he probably has better long term prospects than the previous ones, too! In general we should stick to current or at least recent contributors. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, I would add "et al." to denote multiple unlisted authors (Hence, "Shaenon K. Garrity, Andrew Farago, et al."). Nifboy 20:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HTML entity – vs. Unicode –

Lets decide on one style or the other and keep it applied across the whole document. I checked out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes), but other than confirming we should be using en dashes, it provided no guidance on which way is preferred. Personally, I like the improved readability of the –, since it makes it clearer to newcomers which kind of dash we're using. However, I know we've got a fair number of unicode purists around here, and even bots which periodically blanket swap in Unicode for HTML entities. In any case, please express your opinion one way or the other here first rather than simply reverting. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Note that Curpsbot-unicodify stopped converting dashes after complaints about reduced distinguishability. Bo Lindbergh 13:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm going to go ahead and move the document back to the HTML entity. In the font I use for editing forms, the various dashes are indistinguishable. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

  • The Webcomic List
  • The Belfry Webcomics Index

My fetish for trimming continues unabated: Are these two links more valuable than Comixpedia? Any reason that we couldn't just have comixpedia? - brenneman{L} 08:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I've no objections to limiting this article's external links section to just Comixpedia. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 08:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I've gone ahead and removed them. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 16:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{webcomicsproj}}

The |importance=no is not necessary on the {{webcomicsproj}}. It is enough to indicate it's a non-article page. Particularly to those who are not familiar with WP:1.0, calling it "non-important" is very misleading. Please don't add it back in. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 03:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Checking

Has anyone gone through and looked for redirects/dead external links lately? If not, can we divide the page up and tick off sections. - brenneman {L} 14:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that each person interested in such a project start at the alphabetic place for their own name and work downward; e.g. my name is Anton Sherwood, so I'll start with Shifters. (Not right now 'cos it's past my bedtime.) Assuming that the distribution of titles is not much different from that of surnames, that way we'd divide up the list fairly evenly among the volunteers without needing any coordination. (But list here what you've checked.) —Tamfang 06:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've verified Shifters through Zortic as valid links and noted a few that have gone dormant. —Tamfang 06:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Images

I've had my broadband knocked out for a while now, and so have had to suffer the indignity of 56k internet access until I sign on to a new ISP. The main article already has a longpage warning on the edit screen and contains 17 images. I always press the stop button on my browser before the images are loaded, because on 56k it would just take ages. This is a list of webcomics, do we even need the images? Although they break up the page nicely, and are there for decorative purposes, why do we need them? They don't add anything else to this article but to give undue mention to the webcomics with images on the list. And they're mostly fair use, for which decoration on lists doesn't really count, but that's not even my main point. So I'm asking for the opinions here about removing the images on the page, I propose getting rid of every single one. - Hahnchen 01:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

While it pains me deeply to say it, I must agree. If I'm to suggest others follow fair use where they want, so to for the pages I like. Since their fair use status is in question, I'm going to remove them all while it is discussed. - brenneman {L} 02:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Can anyone find some totally free images? If for example an artist relaeased one frame into the wild, we could use it here.
    brenneman {L} 02:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
There were some free-use images on the page, like Image:Mcninja.jpg and Image:Salo-kosmose.JPG. I was planning on a gradual rid of the fair use images and replacing them with free use ones. But didn't remove them all, in case I'm further branded a member of the Spanish webcomic inquisition even though the fair use policies don't allow for their use here. I'm actually quite a fan of Image:Salo-kosmose.JPG, it's free use, and can't be used as advertising like pretty much the entire page is, because its in Russian :) - Hahnchen 04:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Whoa. I seem to have ingested some stupid pills with my baked beans. Apologies. I'll check the images' status-es-es and restore any that aren't fair use. Sorry for being too keen. - brenneman {L} 05:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Just leave them for the time being, it seems OK now, and as I said before it wrecks 56k and they act like billboards anyway. I wouldn't be against a smattering of free use ones though. - Hahnchen 05:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the free use images and added some others. Also, I believe all Cat and Girl comics are released under Creative Commons. -- Dragonfiend 23:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm alright with that too. But I'm not too sure on the some images, like the one for Scary go Round. We've already got an image for the S section, and it looks a bit out of place there. I'm also not a fan of the Questionable Content image. It's too long and breaks up the HR lines which split the list up. (Viewing text size normal on Firefox) - Hahnchen 04:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Although the QC strip does have both Mogwai and Mercury Rev references in its favour. - Hahnchen 04:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm also not completely happy with the way the Questionable Content and Scary Go Round images fit into the page, and I also think the horizontal Maakies strip looks tiny when scaled down to thumbnail width. I guess the lesson here is that square-shaped comics fit the best. Maybe cutting those images down to one or two panels would help? -- Dragonfiend 05:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article names

Please rename from comicname to comicname_(webcomic). For the reason not to confuse with real-world concepts, for instance 20th_Century_Fox vs 21st_Century_Fox (new name: 21st_Century_Fox_(webcomic)). A few articles already use this extension. User:Yy-bo 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would someone go to 21st Century Fox if not looking for the webcomic? If some other notable entity adopts that name, then we'll disambiguate the article titles. Meanwhile, if it bothers you, add a disambiguation line to the top of 21st Century Fox reminding people that the movie studio's name is 20th not 21st. —Tamfang 19:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyanide and Happiness

why not?

Because we don't link to deleted articles. Bo Lindbergh 06:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It has an article now--Nimrod1234 22:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] longevity

I wonder how many titles we'd have if we included all those that have at least 100 strips available; or, if all webcomics were ranked by number of strips available, how many strips it would take to get into the top thousand. —Tamfang 07:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False positives

Watch out for links to pages that have the same title as a webcomic but aren't actually about that comic.
Examples:

Bo Lindbergh 22:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that one happen as well - someone thought the webcomic "Draw" would be represented well enough by using the Wiki article on the word "Draw", which obviously has nothing to do with said comic. Heh. H Hog 12:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_webcomics_f609.html"