Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Webcomics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Comics This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
This project covers a type of webpage. Please see related discussions on websites at:
Wikipedia talk:Websites
Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging
Shortcut:
WT:WCX
WT:WEBCOMIC

Contents

[edit] Archived discussions

Archive 1: Project vs. Policy, Procedure, Stubs, How much is too much?, What is a "strip"?, What is a "web comic"?, Webcomics and their place in the comics world, Disambiguation Guidelines, Articles we "need", Webcomics project notice, WikiProject format, Shortpacked! and the Willis continuum, A webcomic on VfD, Webcomic stubs need clean-up, This Comic Sucks, Infobox, WWW Balloon, Questionable inclusion, Articles we need, Last Cereal and Untitled.gif.

[edit] Just a suggestion

Is there any way, when putting a webcomic article for deletion, to inform its creator so that he may move th article to Comixpedia? Or maybe a redirect to the comixpedia article (instead of the ever hated-*article does not exist?*)

JCM 06:20, October 31 2006

[edit] What happened to Acid reflux?

Its marked as getting a Keep for its AfD but its no longer in the wiki. —preceding unsigned comment by Dformosa (talk • contribs)

  • Nothing happened: Acid Reflux (webcomic). - brenneman(t)(c) 05:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh I've seen what happened, its been moved from Acid Reflux to Acid Reflux (webcomic) I've fixed the page to reflect this. Dformosa 06:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving articles between lists

Moved 'Power Puff' link to pages we have. Rightly corrected for wrong article. Changed link. (see history)

Moved Jesus man. It belongs in 'Articles we need' but I dont know the site link.

[edit] Concurrent versions

While looking through Category:web comics I noticed that there are 2 nearly identical versions of the same artitle: Soap On A Rope and Soap on a Rope. One should be merged/redirected into the other, I'll leave that up to someone who knows about the strip. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:25, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

Fixed! Since they were identical, I just redirected Soap On A Rope to Soap on a Rope.--DNicholls 04:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Link Format

In my opinion, all the "wcl" links that were just added make the list harder to read less visually appealing. I think that perhaps this outweighs the benefits of the "Talk Links Edit artitle website" features.

- Matthew0028 02:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Talk/Links/Edit are just one click away from the article anyway. Bo Lindbergh 12:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ArticleStructure

Should we attempt to come up with a page structure that can be used as a model for each webcomic article? Like, mention different sections that should be included, and order they should appear, etc. Obviously, not every article will fit the mold 100%, but it would probably be a good guideline. Comments? Matthew0028 05:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this a good idea. I've been looking at some of the currently stubbed articles and it's hard to know where to start. A consistent structure would help. I'd think sections on the following would be a good start: Brief History (of the comic)Plot, Characters, Art and Writing Style, Anything else? Dragonfiend 21:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I think a good place to start would be by looking at what sections are currently used (and useful). Checking the more detailed and better articles for examples would be a good idea (which I will be doing shortly).Matthew0028 03:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Possible topics taken from existing articles: For comics with a setting detailed enough to warrant it, a discussion of the setting could be useful. Availability (online, in print, etc.), Criticism & Praise, The Site (and/or fan community). Matthew0028 04:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I am using the structure we've suggested to try to get the Narbonic entry in shape. If anyone (especially you, Matthew) wants to help organize the Narbonic entry that would be great. Then we can use the final organized format for Narbonic as the guide for others. Dragonfiend 18:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Likewise, I've used a similar structure when I added a lot of content to the Bob and George entry, so it's probably similar to what we want to end up with. Comments and modifications, either on the article or more importantly on the structure (and whether it is something we should adapt overall), would be useful.

[edit] Side Projects

I'm not sure where the notability line is drawn on webcomics sideprojects. My feeling is that a side project shouldn't have its own entry unless the sideproject itself is notable. Instead, the side project ought to be briefly dealt with within the article on the original notable webcomic. Below is an older discussion that was taking place on the project page that should've been here in discussion. Dragonfiend 02:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Built for Comfort:
    • This article was formerly a stub, probably created because of the connection it has to the comic No 4th Wall to Break. I expanded this article so it is no longer a stub. Previously listed as nonnotable by another user but is a project of the co-author of No 4th Wall to Break and so article was created to compliment other project (similar to Jeph Jacques' Indie Tits) - Tedzsee
    • I'm not very familar with either of them, but neither of these side projects appear to be notable enough for their own entry. Dragonfiend
    • No 4th Wall is a member of the well-known Day-Free Press webcomic group. IndieTits already had a vote for deletion that ended in a keep vote. With that as a precident, I wrote the article for another side-project of a similar DayFree press comic. Hope that makes sense as a rationale.Tedzsee

[edit] Article not updating?

I've checked out a few of the entries in the article and several contained out of date information. This does not seem to bode well for this enterprise. (Yeah, pretentious, I know, but it sounds good.) Seriously, how about someone going through and updating them? Lee M 02:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if you're saying this project page needs updating or whether you're saying the articles that the project page links to need updating. Both are true. It's also true that practically every wikipedia article needs updating. I, too, wish there were more active people working on this project, but the best suggestion I would have for you is to just continue to update articles yourself as needed. Dragonfiend 18:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I was referring specifically to entries on the project page not being updated in line with the linked articles - see for instance the entries for Count Your Sheep and Perry Bible Fellowship where I've now struck through the obsolete info. Of course I'll continue to do so if I catch others, but as you say it would be nice if there were enough people to catch the ones I missed. Lee M 23:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "kick ass" articles discussion

Do we want to have some sort of discussion about before a given article should make it to the Articles that kick ass section? I know it's not completely necessary, but it could be helpful. First, keep marginal entries that could benefit from being in a lower section (i.e. "please work on me") out, and also help decide what still needs to be done, which would probably lead to it being doneJ. Just a suggestion. Comments? - Matthew0028 03:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion list

Hi folks,

I just wanted to let you know about a list of comics- and animation- related Votes for deletion. Not all of the items on the list are webcomics, of course, but a few webcomics turn up almost every day. Anyway, the list is maintained by WikiProject Deletion sorting, and you can find it here.

Please use the list to track and contribute to webcomic-related debates. If you use the list, please also help keep it up to date. Thanks!

Cheers,

-- Visviva 04:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally my own experience with webcomic VfDing left a sour taste in my mouth, and a potential bias toward inclusion. Lee M 23:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomics or Web comics?

Are we going with Webcomics or Web comics? I need to know because I'm going to create some new categories. Ex Category:Wikipedians interested in webcomics or Category:Wikipedians interested in web comics? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:09, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested in webcomics is waiting for you now! Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:46, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

[edit] Linking author names

I am of the opinion that all webcomic articles should have the author's name wikilinked. What are the project's guidelines on this? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:25, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed. If a webcomic is notable, but its author has done nothing else that is notable, then any personal information about them should go in the webcomic article. If we have them wikilinked, we'll get a lot of useless articles that say, "John Smith is the author of Webcomic. This article is a stub." DenisMoskowitz 15:58, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
Bad idea. Very few webcomic authors are notable for anything other than drawing the webcomic. Most of them are still in college -- most webcomic author articles will be similar enough that we can use a template to create them:
'''{{{name}}}''' is the author of the [[webcomic]] [[{{{comic}}}]]. He was born in [[{{{date}}}]], [[{{{year}}}]] in [[{{{birth_city}}}]], and is currently attending [[{{{university}}}]].
{{webcomic-author-stub}}
--Carnildo 20:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can a skeptic join?

Can I join if I'm a fan of webcomics, and want to improve articles on notable ones, but am a skeptic of your mission as currently stated? -- SCZenz 22:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A heads up

Would interested Wikicomicians keep an eye on the targets of the message posted at WP:ANI#malicious editing by group of MB posters and then bragging about it.? -Splashtalk 14:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Author stub

I'm not sure what the author stub category should be for {{webcomic-author-stub}}. The stub currently links to Category:Webcomics authors stubs, but I think that it may be named wrong, which is why I haven't instantiated it yet. If someone could correct this, I would appreciate it. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Addition

I have a new addition to add here, I am the colorist for this particular comic New World (comic). I made a Wiki for it its beena round since about 2003, or thast atleast when the first comic is listed on the site.

Also I have a interesting project to announce, also as a subcomic f that site theres a comic called Round Robin, where anyone can draw a comic and post a update for it. Of course the people on the forums have to agree on the update before it goes up. rrobin.tfsnewworld.com, tell me what you think about it. Its a Rocking idea I think.

- Kat, Robert Maupin

[edit] © templates

I've started making copyright templates for webcomic media. The first one I made is {{webcomicpanel}}, based off of {{comicpanel}}. Thoughts? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we may not need these copyright templates. Webcomic artists tend to be more approachable than other comic artists, so it should be pretty easy to get a single strip or a cast sketch released under a free license. --Carnildo 18:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] genre categories

I've created some genre categories for webcomics. Please tag articles appropriately and add any missing genres.

Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This looks like a good idea, but I'm not sure just how feasible it is -- maybe you can explain how you see it being used. Some questions/issues.
    1. Do you think there's a limit to how many genres a single comic should be categorized as? As per genre, "In general there are three types of genre: Those of setting, such as westerns or science fiction; Those of mood, such as comedy or horror; Those of format, such as musicals or non-fiction. In artforms such as music, painting, and sculpture, genre tends to be determined by format and [a 4th type of genre] style." Already your list has genres of style (Manga), genres of subject matter (LGBT, political, etc.), genres of setting (science fiction, fantasy), and genres of mood (comedy, drama). We could also add genres of format such as full page, strip, single panel, and infinite canvas. It would seem then that every comic would have 4 genres or more. Going by style/format/seting/mood, Narbonic is a cartoon/comic strip/science fiction/comedy. Mega Tokyo is a manga/full page/video game/comedy. 8-Bit Theater is a sprite/comic strip/video game an/or fantasy/comedy.
    2. I added your list of genres to a "See also" portion of Webcomic genres, where I see very specific genres like "absurdist fiction" and "dark comedy." Do we want to break comedy up that finely? Absurdist comedy, dark comedy, light-hearted comedy, slapstick, etc.? It seems like at some point we'll cross the line into original research (which I think that Webcomic genres article probably already has).
    3. We probably ought to make sure that the webcomics info boxes use these genre categories in the category field, right? And link to, for example, Category:Comedy webcomics rather than just comedy from the info box?
I do think this will be useful, being able to find all of the manga webcomics or science fiction webcomics in a single category, but I guess I'm not sure yet how to go about this without knowing your thoughts on this -- Should every webcomic have 4 or 5 genre categories? How finely should we divide our categories? Should our categories be consistently used in the infoboxes as well? Dragonfiend 15:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
It more or less looks like most webcomics will have several genres. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I more or less copied the basic setups from the film and book genres. I wasn't planning on any really fine grain stuff at this point. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Sounds good. I didn't realize their was a precednt for this type of categorization. I've started adding the catogeories myself. (Though about 99% of the articles I go to add categories to I discover some one else has already added them to. Maybe we should note on the project page which ones are categorized (as well as which ones have infoboxes)? So it's clear which articles need that work?Dragonfiend 19:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomic awards

Ok, as it turns out there are 2 articles on the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. I'm gonna need help merging them. (One was started by myself because the other was not listed).

Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Damnit! I *knew* there was a common spelling of the WCCA's that I was missing (previously, the WCCA article used a directional apostrophe, so nobody could ****ing FIND it)! But no, I'm not sure we really need to reproduce the list of winners, as the lists are real easy to find off the WCCA site; just mentioning the awards on each comics' article should be enough. Nifboy 07:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I see what you mean ;) . I reproduced the results for better reference to the articles that have award(s). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Are those famous enough?

I had started working on an article about a webcomic, but now I'm not sure if it's "notable" enough. It's [1]. I also considered writing an article about [2], but, well, same problem .I looked at the project page, but looked at the "notability" criteria too late, which are way more strict than the "must have more than 100 strips" mentioned on the project page. I'm neither one of the creators, nor their friend, nor a rabid fan; I just read them a while ago, and added references to those comics to the List of dragons, and thought adding articles would make sense *shrugs* Anke 19:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I haven't checked out the articles you've added, but see WP:WEB for more info on whether a particular webcomic may be considered notable. I have also updated the year-old introductory mission statement on this article to reflect the current consensus on notability. Dragonfiend 19:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I had written it in Notepad and not added it to Wikipedia. I'm quite sure those comics don't meet the criteria, so I won't add them. Thanks. Anke 07:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
      • If you've already got it written up, the Comixpedia wiki will probably want it. --Carnildo 07:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Shroud

I happened upon this poorly formatted stub, and I was wondering if it's worth saving or if it's AfD fodder. I'm not up on webcomics and wikipedia's standards, so I'd like to get some feedback. Thanks. -R. fiend 22:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think WP:COMIC covers flash animations (which are generally one-timers or mini-series), but then, the Red vs Blue article calls its subject a "video webcomic" so I have no clue. Nifboy 03:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't really sure if they were included in the category. Is Homestarrunner a webcomic or a webcartoon? Anyway, I figured anyone here would at least know more on the subject than I do. Should I take it to AfD? -R. fiend 04:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
See WP:WEB for guidelines on web sites. Dragonfiend 05:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I've gone and made it into a proper stub. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Same or Similar Titles

How should we differentiate comics with similar titles but have nothing to do with (and probably aren't aware of) each other? For example, there exists an entry for Roomies (comic) by David Willis, but not one for "Roomies" by Dan Canaan, which has also been established for several years and should have an entry. Should the article titles be "Comic Name (comic) by Author Name", "Author Name's Comic Name" (which wouldn't need "comic" in parens), or some other convention? I think the first is the best bet. Gentaur 15:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] user webcomic

User:CyberSkull/User webcomic What do you think? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It's good, but I also felt like we should have a Project Member template for our User pages. See {{Webcomics_Project_Member}} and tell me what you think. Jokermage 06:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
It's been moved to {{User webcomic}}. Enjoy! Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I finally got around to adding this to my userbox list. I noticed the webcomic link in the template leads to the category. Perhaps we could have it lead to the WikiProject instead? –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 07:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
No, that's what this one is for. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 09:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, nice one. Any opinion about adding Category:Wikipedians interested in webcomics to this one as well? I know opinion is divided on adding cats to user boxes. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, categories designed to help with writing an encyclopedia are not controversial, so feel free to add the category... Though I'd prefer something like Category:WikiProject Webcomics members. —Nightstallion (?) 14:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I created the cat and added it to the userbox. I think I'll add both of these userboxes to the main page. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two more...

Found pages for 9th Elsewhere and Secret of Mana Theater which I will be adding to the list and cleaning up over the next few days... - CorbinSimpson 09:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] keenspace.com domain name going away

KeenSpot is doing away with the keenspace.com domain, effective at the end of the year (i.e., in a few days). It looks like xxx.keenspace.com will change to either xxx.comicgenesis.com or just xxx.comicgen.com, but whatever the case, we should keep an eye out for keenspace links and fix them as we find them. There's some details in this forum post. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I fixed a few articles in the list that I could find confirmed URL updates for. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 16:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/references to keenspace.com for a machine generated list of affected pages. Should we temporarily add this to the todo list? Bo Lindbergh 23:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I went through the list Bo created and updated all the links and Keenspace references. A fair number of them aren't in the webcomics list, and I suspect if I add those, some will quickly land in AfD. It turns out the keenspace.com domain still works, but as of 11 January, all keenspace urls redirect to comicgenesis. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] keenspace.com domain gone

I regenerated Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/references to keenspace.com from a newer database dump. The list is much shorter this time around. Bo Lindbergh 12:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I've fixed a few of these. I'm both sick as a dog and busy as hell, so my Wikitime is greatly diminished, but the list's short, so I'll get it done in the next few days. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 23:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I found a little time, and it didn't take very long to fix the links. There is just one link left to Keenspace, and that is from Dave Kelly's Smut. Its current url is "smut.comicgenesis.com", but because "smut.com" is blacklisted, it's not possible to update the link. I noticed this last month and submitted a whitelist request on Meta, but it's not been acted upon. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on Webomics? Obviously, your articles that kick ass are the kind we're looking for. :) Please post your sugestions here. Cheers!--Shanel 03:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, like 98% of them consist almost entirely of lists, usually character lists. As they currently stand I'd reccomend Megatokyo and half of Penny Arcade (the half that is not the crossovers and minor cast lists), possibly Sinfest as well. Nifboy 04:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!--Shanel 18:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)p
I agree with Megatokyo and Sinfest. - CorbinSimpson 21:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

For those interested, the list (along with the list of every other Project) is here. Nifboy 03:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomic search engine

Oh No Robot is a search engine for webcomics. If anyone needs to lookup a quote or something for the 300+ comics it has, I recommend it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a category for comics on Oh No Robot? Nekura 19:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so. In theory every webcomic could be indexed in it, so we would have every webcomic we have in that category. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undeletion

I'm interested in getting Stubble undeleted. I belive that the deletion was missing important facts about the strip in the first place, such as the comic had a spin off. In the interest of full disclosure I do state that I have been a fan of Stubble for quite some time now. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It's one of Josh Mirman's comics, so I agree it should have a place. However, after looking at the last deleted version, I think maybe it would be easier just to recreate the article. It was just a stub that didn't do much to assert its notability. Here's all it said:

Stubble is an independent humor/drama webcomic by Josh Mirman. It stars the sometimes angsty Clint Wilson and his friends as they experience and struggle with life, love, betrayal, and death. Stubble has been online since the year 2000.

I don't think that would survive WP:DRV, and even if it did, you'd end up waiting a week just to get a stub back. If you've got an expanded version in mind that would weather a WP:WEB challenge, I'd post that without worrying about formal undeletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, and if you do recreate it and someone speedies it, let me know. I'll undelete it and pass it on to AfD if necessary. Recreations shouldn't get speedied, but sometimes they're mistaken for out-of-process undeletions. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the info. I haven't seen the article in a long time and I couldn't remember what it said. Looks like I gotta get writing. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what does the template mean?

I recently came across the Wikiproject Webcomics template on Talk:Stickworld. What does it mean that an article is part of the project? Are the folks involved advocating the existance of the article and/or indicating an intention to improve it? I ask because this particular one looked a lot like a speedy candidate, and has been deleted, yet it still has the template on its talk page. I think it would be useful to do more than slap a template on it, when the article is up for deletion. Is any webcomic, no matter how unheard of, going to be considered part of this project? Friday (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Near as I can tell it's just a standard plate applied to anything in Category: Webcomics. Although it just occured to me that the list on the project page (which, theoretically, should contain everything in list of webcomics) is a worklist that existed before worklists were popular. Nifboy 21:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I generally consider any webcomic-related article to fall under the project. Speedy candidates are the exception, but that particular iteration of the article was nominated for deletion via WP:PROD, not WP:CSD. I didn't believe it was sufficiently important to be saved, which is why I didn't remove the {{prod}}, but because we do keep track of deletion candidates, I added the template. In any case, I deleted that talk page. I'm not sure why that wasn't removed along with the article itself. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Proposal for new guidelines for Webcomics

As we know, there has been a lot of controversy over webcomics on Wikipedia, specifically deletion of said articles. Dozens of webcomics have been deleted in the past few months, and even some popular ones have been AfDed (such as Checkerboard Nightmare and even Megatokyo). Additionally, it is known that it is difficult to verify articles for webcomics. Hence, I introduce the WP:WEBCOMIC standard. Basically, it works as follows.

1) ANY webcomic that has been around for six months and has enough activity, such as:

  1. 120 comics in six months for a daily. 
  2. 20 comics in six months for a weekly, or sporadic update.
  3. 4 comics in six months for a monthly, would be eligible.

This includes Comic Genesis and Drunk Duck comics, as examples.

2) To verify the content (such as info about archives), one would go to the site and look through the site's content. If the article refers to a forum, it should have at least 20 posts in a three month period (as webcomic forums are notoriously empty) edit: that are not all by the author. The number of forum goers is to verify if the forum is popular enough to qualify as a decent source.

3) For inactivity of the comic (not the article) (after a three month period), the article would be moved to the Inactive Webcomics list, where after six more months, it would become an AfD or PROD.

4) Completed webcomics would go in the Complete Webcomics list.

5) Articles that need cleanup would be Marked for Cleanup, as now.

6) You can write your own article, as long as it isn't excessively promotional. This means that it's okay to talk about your characters and your comic's history, but it isn't okay to say it's the best webcomic ever or "Go visit my forums". You are allowed to say what's improved over the beginning of the comic, if you'd like.

And that's all! A very simple standard for webcomics, that would put an end to the fighting that runs rampant in AfD pages with webcomics! Exact numbers can change depending on community discussion, but there's the basic standard, as I post it. --Videowizard2006 06:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you define inactivity? Do you mean that if an article hasn't been edited in 6 months or the comic hasn't been updated in 6 months? There are many notable comics that are concluded or on hiatus that could be considered inactive. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I feel the need to point out the Megatokyo AfD was proposed by an editor who was all, like, "Well if you're going to delete Checkerboard Nightmare, why not delete all webcomics, starting with Megatokyo!" and was speedily kept. But as regards the proposal, my only question is, "what does the number of forum members verify?" Nifboy 07:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The number of forum members (and posts) defines its popularity. If it only has, say, 10 posts and two members, it's not a good source. Also, inactivity is if the comic hasn't been updated, not the article. However, the writer of the article should be notified of any decision. --Videowizard2006 08:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I will not support any proposal that seeks to remove articles because their parent comics have concluded or gone on hiatus. Theoretically, we have articles on webcomics that have made some kind of impact during their history. Now, notability is a tough issue when it comes to webcomics, and no guideline will make everyone happy, but absolutely notability should not rely on a comic being current. Personally, I'm fairly happy with the current WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Except: 4) Completed webcomics would go in the Complete Webcomics list. Comics that have concluded will not be at risk of removal, and I'm kind of on the fence about ones on hiatus. Sometimes, the comic goes on hiatus, and it's one of the pioneers (first sprite comic, first RPG comic, first 3D comic, etc). Those would be safe. I actually wouldn't expect to have to remove any articles for webcomics on hiatus unless Wikipedia is running low on space. Until then, the articles are safe. --Videowizard2006 23:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WEB

I'd urge anyone thinking of making a "webcomic specific" guideline to mosey over to wp:web and have a chat there. This has been hashed out to the point of being taken to arbitration. All of the points raised above have been discussed and many times.

  • Inclusion based on "has X number of comics over Y months" has been rejected - this is a sub-set of the "it exists thus is encyclopedic" argument. Almost no one will buy into this.
  • Verifying the contents ourselves - this would amount to original research. Wikipedia is a tertiary and secondary source, so unless someone else looks through the archive and prints their findings, we can't include it.
  • Number of forum posts are not only original research, they are impossible to verify as valid. It's well known that Wikipedia entries produce a large percentage of hits for listed webcomics, so if I want my wedcomic in all I have to do is send a sock army to the forum?
  • Inactivity in most cases does not relate to encyclopedic nature. Either something is a valid entry and will continue to be so for considerably longer than six months or it shouldn't have been inlcuded in the first place.

A simpler way to end the "fighting" on webcomic AfDs would be for people to stop making entries on completely non-notable webcomics. Put them on comixpedia, and leave Wikipedia for things that have been mentioned in multiple reliable sources per the guideline.
brenneman{T}{L} 23:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that my conviction that several people with no sense of what Wikipedia policies and guidelines actually mean have now successfully rammed through their misinterpretations and are now trying to use them as a hammer to discourage contributors.
Wait, no, I'm horribly dismayed, and frankly appalled to see you doing this even after an arbitration case on the subject. Or did you take that as some sort of blanket endorsement of your behavior?
As for people who are not Aaron, please feel free to contribute high-quality articles on any subject you feel is important and that Wikipedia's coverage is lacking in. And if Aaron or anyone else decides to give you shit about it, stop by my talk page and I'll see what I can do to help you out. Phil Sandifer 23:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Aaron warned in that case to seek consensus before dicking around with policy like this? --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Stupidity removed. brenneman{T}{L} 01:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Apologies to everyone who is being nice, they are of course correct. - brenneman{T}{L} 02:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi! As a non-party but interested observer of the Webcomics arbcom case, I feel perfectly free to say this: Snowspinner, the fact that you equate "discussing things calmly on a talk page" with "giving people shit" is exactly why, in my opinion, the Arbcom utterly rejected most of the stupid remedies you proposed. Now, if perhaps those of you who were actually cautioned by the Arbcom to remain civil could realize that that caution did not just apply to the other guys, the rest of us will be able to get on with building an encyclopedia. Thanks! Nandesuka 12:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've put some of my thoughts on the matter here. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop it. All of you.

It seems none of you are being civil at this point. Except you, videowizard, who was neither involved in this last time nor explicitly told by ArbCom to be nice. Nifboy 02:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering when hostilities would resurface. No surprises here. Nifboy 00:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping that they wouldn't. And stopped looking at the policy pages in question for a few months in order to facillitate that. Apparently what happened was that, absent any actual opposition, exactly what I was afraid of happened. Phil Sandifer 00:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. We are seeing an increase in the number of webcomics showing up on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion and it is hard to determine which ones we should keep and which ones we should delete. Is there some general consensus in the Webcomics Wikiproject community as to what makes a webcomic notable? Frequency of update, readership, quality, search engine ranking, etc.? Thanks. Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 00:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

In a word, no. For the most part, we're leaving that up to the AfD masses. If you see anything that should definitely be kept get deleted, though, please let me know - I've not been following webcomics AfDs because, frankly, they depress the hell out of me. Phil Sandifer 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
If you see anything that should definitely be kept get deleted. This is the problem though. You're relying on shlubs like me (who know very little about webcomics) to determine if a particular webcomic is notable. Some criteria would be very helpful to AfDers and would cut down on frustrations the webcomic community has with AfDers.
What are the most recognized and popular webcomics out there? What do they all have in commmon? Are they all updated at least weekly? Have they all been around for at least a year? Do they have a search engine ranking of at least X? There must be something all of these have in common. We can use this as a baseline for what is encyclopedic. Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 14:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This has been done to death on the WP:WEB talk page. We've examined Alexa rank, editors, selection boards, academic journals, vanity presses, and google page rank. I've compiled long lists of comics and we've gone down them ticking offwhat fits what criterion, looking at what was deleted in afd, what was afd-ed twice in and kept after being recreated three times, what was nominated three times and kept every time, and probably one hundred other things that I can't recall. The current standards at wp:web actually include everything that had consensus as an important webcomic. If a webcomic has not won an award, been reviewed in wired or salon, or had a print run, we're usually left with one person saying "it's notable because I say it is!" - brenneman{T}{L} 23:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
You know, these discussions would go better if you limited yourself to saying true things. Phil Sandifer 23:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do point out any specific errors I may have made so that I may correct them poste-haste.
    brenneman{T}{L} 23:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Best strike out the comment above in full, then. Phil Sandifer 00:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, is that any different from simply saying "You're entirely wrong"? The latter is at least far less vague, even if it doesn't provide any better an explanation. Nifboy 00:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not really very different, no. Phil Sandifer 00:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't even know who consists of the "webcomics wikiproject community" anymore. Nifboy 01:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
As I've said, I didn't realize that it was notable for something to be the first of something (first sprite comic, first 3D comic, etc) when I wrote my article. With the November 2000 date, it's the earliest comic based on an RPG Maker creation, the next closest is an obscure comic in 2001 that no longer is published (still making Dragon Kingdoms the longest running). And there are RPG Maker based comics today, one of which is Spritescape Fantasy. Is it impossible, that maybe at least someone started out on an RPG Maker based comic, from reading mine? Because I find it hard to believe that being first out there isn't notable. And I agree with Snowspinner about all these AfD's being depressing (there's SIXTEEN comics, not counting mine that have articles on the list!) --Videowizard2006 01:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'd just as soon get rid of Neglected Mario Characters (the first sprite comic), but that's just me being biased. In your particular instance I'd say that, since comics based on RPG Maker aren't anywhere near as notorious as sprite comics in general, you have a much weaker case. Nifboy 01:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
As I'd expect, since there are few RPG Maker based comics. However, there are also few 3D based comics, too. And that does have an example (no matter how much people try to edit it out), so why not this? --Videowizard2006 02:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The current spate of webcomics on AfD is getting very tiresome. The snarkiness of some of the voters needs to stop, and blitzes like these are extremely offputting to newcomers. I appreciate the sentiments of those who feel they are just cleaning house, but especially when they come in torrents like this, it does more harm than good. They really need to start going to WP:PROD first, too. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Note I've taken of my idiot hat off.I agree about multiple nominations, and have left a note on the nominator's talk page saying so. My nomination was just an unhappy coincidence, not part of some pogrom. The only way that I can that PROD would help is that it would slide "under the radar" as it were, which hardly seems the point. Clearly if people are going to say "keep everything that has 100 strips" they'd removed any prod tag that they saw? - brenneman{T}{L} 02:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • My experience is that prod is working as intended. I've made a few nominations myself, and for the most part the tags stay when they should. This is even after I notify the articles' original authors . Admittedly, PROD won't always work -- it wouldn't have been a good idea for Stubble, for example -- but for some of the others it's a good first step. It's a more relaxed, less confrontational process, and I don't think it's any more under the radar than AfD itself is. For the record, we try to keep track of deletion nominations here on the WikiProject, and those include prods, too. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Also for the record, we don't list the deletions here just so we can all pile on and vote keep. Dragonfiend is a project member, yet usually votes delete, after all. Even though I classify myself as an inclusionist, I usually don't vote at all unless I strongly feel an AfD was made in error. I've even voted delete a few times. The deletion section is just another way for us to keep track of the comings and goings of webcomic-related articles, like the templates, categories and list do. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 03:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • While we're putting stuff on record: I hadn't ascribed that motive at all. The fact that things are listed when they get the *prod* would have made that clear to anyone who was failing to assume good faith. ^_^
      brenneman{T}{L} 04:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I echo Nifboy's sentiment. Nandesuka 12:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted content

Briefly - in the event that an article gets deleted that does not exist on comixpedia, just drop a not on my talk page and I'll make the material available. "Content review" at deletion review would do the same thing, and there exists a category of admins who are also willing.
brenneman{T}{L} 00:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I'll do the same thing. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 05:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Articles we need" on the main page

This section seems to me to be ignoring the massive number of deleted articles listed lower down. How many of these would pass the website inclusion guidelines?
brenneman{T}{L} 00:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There are five Keenspot strips on the list: Andiewear, Everything Jake, Help Desk, Hound's Home, and Lost & Found. The rest would need to be justified individually. Nifboy 02:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I changed the section header to "Articles we don't have" -- that's at least factual, while "need" was debatable. I think a short note on why we might need each article might make this section more useful (such as Nifboy started to provide for a few above). Although if we're going to go to the trouble to explain why individual webcomics ought to have encyclopedia articles then we might just as well create stub articles on them. Or redirects to the Keenspot article or something. Not that I think every comic on Keenspot ought to have an article -- there have been some pretty unexceptional comics on Keenspot over the years. -- Dragonfiend 02:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
We've never hashed out the question of Keenspot with regard to inclusion criterion, either. While I'd shy away from making any further "notes" on wp:web, I do think that this deserves more examination. - brenneman{T}{L} 03:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
For me, Keenspot is generally "good enough" for inclusion. The general concensus seemed to be that it was a huge step towards notability even if it wasn't guaranteed. The absolute worst Keenspot strip is Look what I Brought Home, one of Keenspot's earliest members, and I'm still on the fence on that. Nifboy 04:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It's stretching a long ways back in my memory here, but have we tried laying the existing guidelines next to the keenspot list? I thought (as I intimated above) that we'd found in most cases there did exist some outside chatter about the comic? Having a non-trivial print run seemed to be common, if I recall correctly... brenneman{T}{L} 04:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Not Keenspot specifically, no. The sample list had a few Keenspot strips that also passed because of other criteria. I know at one point or another I (incorrectly) cited Elf Only Inn as the absolute low point for Keenspot strips, and inferred that if that was going to stay then the vast majority of Keenspot also stays. Nifboy 05:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The Needed, Expand, Good, and Kick Ass sections could all use some updating and house cleaning. It'd be useful if the the latter three reflected the contents of the list of webcomics, focusing in this case on article quality rather than notability. "Expand" should probably become "Improve", since it includes the poorly written and crufty as well as the stubs. As far as the "Needed" section, I dunno. If people want to request articles for comics that are likely to be challenged, we're not going to be able to stop them, but a reminder to look over WP:WEB may be in order. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 06:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It might be worthwhile to set up a worklist. It'd certainly help with the WP:1.0 efforts and/or set up a WebComics WikiReader. Nifboy 06:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another request for Webcomics notability standards

It seems to me that a sizeable number of the current webcomics articles might well not meet the WP:WEB standards. For example, most of them which have been reviewed by media sources have in fact been reviewed by webcomic websites, which don't seem to me to fit the following: "reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations".

In addition, during AfD debates on those articles which are proposed, it seems that what ends up keeping some of them are multiple comments like "this comic is definitely notable". If editors interested in webcomics have some standards of notability they are not outright stating, they ought to state them outright.

Most of my personal wikipedia editing consists of attempting to get non-notable articles deleted. Instead of my immediate nominating/proposing of dozens of webcomic articles for deletion based on a combination of wp:web and alexa ratings much over 100,000, I'd rather you all gave me some better sense of how you go about determining which ones you find to be notable.

Note: I found the following while looking around: Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines. It now redirects to wp:web. Why did you all abandon this effort? --Xyzzyplugh 01:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Webcomics/Notability wasn't so much as abandoned as merged with WP:WEB, the idea being that posting comics on the internet isn't (as far as notability is concerned) that different from posting fiction, photos, political views, poetry, movie reviews, game cheats or any other type of content on the web. The current WP:WEB is a very good guideline as far as I'm concerned. But rather than you nominating dozens of articles at a time, maybe you should just start with a couple that you think are the worst examples of vanity, unverifiability or whatever and nominate those? That way each one is more likely to get the attention it deserves. Also, be aware that nominating vanity articles for deletion will often be taken personally by the article's editor and they will often react badly, so try to be extra special nice even if profanity, incivility and personal attacks come your way. -- Dragonfiend 02:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Seconded with the "don't nominate more than two or three" comment. In fact, seconded to everything above.
      brenneman{T}{L} 03:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Even though I typically don't vote the same way Dragonfiend and Aaron do on AfDs, I concur. I'm going to lose my inclusionist merit badge for revealing this, but if you're of a mind to clean the cruft out of our webcomics portfolio, I have a few recommendations. It sounds terrible, but go for the orphans first: stubs primarily edited by one person about non-notable comics and then left to rot for months and even years. (People doing templates, categories, stubs, dabs, etc, don't count.) PROD 'em and they will go gentle into that good night. And if they don't, that's what AfD is for. When you do work up to articles that are being actively maintained make sure you've got all your ducks in a row before nominating. As Dragonfiend and Aaron said, observe WP:CIV scrupulously and avoid nominating more than a few at a time. Any more than that, and it gets noticed, and when I say noticed, I not only mean the fans, but also places like WikiEN-l. That usually ends in tears. Both pro- and anti- deletion camps synergize over the perceived assault and there is much drama. Contributors leave the project with a bad taste in their mouths, and for those who remain there's much ill will over what should have been a trivial matter. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Alright, question for you. Here are a few examples, are these considered notable and worthy of an article by webcomics editors? Accidental_Obscurity Apathy_Kat The_Adventures_of_Epicenter --Xyzzyplugh 06:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Both Obscurity and Epicenter are relatively new articles; Epicenter was prodded and the article creator took offense. Apathy Kat is an odd one, but I really consider it more of a comic than a webcomic because of this (a print collection that has been mentioned elsewhere). It's no Girl Genius, certainly, and I don't think the usual rules for webcomics apply (Usually, a print collection for a webcomic is a major milestone and a sign of mainstream support). Nifboy 06:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but are they notable? Are they worthy of a wikipedia article? --Xyzzyplugh 14:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Obscurity and Epicenter, no. Apathy Kat, no idea. Nifboy 19:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Apathy Kat has had a few articles written about it in the trade media, so I would say it's notable. Image:Tycon.jpgCoyoty 04:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I apply the Notability (Web) standards to webcomics, and this is what I get:

  • 1. The webcomic must be discussed in a non-Internet forum independent of the creators (i. e., a news magazine, TV show, or other content, but not a paid commercial, advertisement, or press release). Non-inclusionists can point out that The Comics Journal is not a significant non-Internet forum, much less its lesser competitors, and effectively reduce the number of eligible comics here to under a dozen, at most.
  • 2. OR The webcomic must win a major award from an independent source. Of which there are none.
  • 3. OR The webcomic must have distribution through a well-known online publisher, separate of and independent from the creator. Aside from the newspaper comic syndicates, the only two that qualify here that pop to mind are Keenspot and the Modern Tales pay service. ComicGenesis and other free hosts don't count; neither does any webcomic which is hosted at the expense of the creator; neither does Blank Label, which is a cooperative of the member creators. Technically my own tiny company might count- four of the seven active, complete or hiatus web comics hosted by White Lightning Productions don't involve me in any creative role whatever- but the three most popular comics DO, and that makes them ineligible under this rule.

Under these rules the only notable web comics would be, at most, PvP, Penny Arcade, User Friendly, the Keenspot webcomics, and the pay-per-view Modern Tales webcomics. This would leave out a lot of webcomics with readership in the five figures, maybe even the six figures. (Anyone know if Sluggy Freelance has appeared on TV or in Newsweek?) In fact, I personally think these rules could be stretched to exclude all webcomics completely.

It's repeated again and again that the WP:WEB Notability standards have "group consensus." I'm a member of the group, and I don't agree. There needs to be a specific WP:Webcomics standard for notability that doesn't exclude all but the chosen few. Redneckgaijin 22:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi Redneckgaijin. Will it change your mind if I point out that they've discussed Nowhere Girl in the Village Voice, Leisure Town on CNN, When I Am King in Wired, Fetus-X in The Detroit News, Narbonic in Publishers Weekly, Drew Weing in The New York Times, and Svetlana Chmakova in USA Today? And according to my library, Sluggy Freelance has been discussed on NPR, in The Orange County Register, The Detroit Free Press, The Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, etc. I've also never seen anyone question the use of The Comics Journal as a reliable, independent source. I think the idea that there are no Wikipedia:Reliable sources for articles about notable webcomics is incorrect. -- Dragonfiend 03:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • My response is: seven is less than a dozen, which is my rough guess for the number of webcomics covered in what would be considered "valid" independent media. To your list I'd add PvP (which got news coverage when Scott Kurtz offered his strip free to any newspaper that wanted it) and Penny Arcade (which gets coverage for its creators' charity work). The problem here is that the "valid" aspect of the question is a judgment call- an opinion- and thus could be abused... for example, by excluding newspapers due to their transitory nature. It's not a good benchmark. Redneckgaijin 05:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Have you even heard of half the examples given? I haven't. Just because the comics you read aren't included doesn't mean webcomics as a whole are underrepresented. Nifboy 07:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:WEB is far from perfect, but the problem with having an independent set of guidelines for webcomics is we couldn't get buy-in from the larger Wikipedia community. What ended up happening is we'd spend a lot of time banging together a WP:COMIC and still people would vote "Delete all webcomics!!111!one!" on AfDs. So, we hooked on to the web site guidelines. It's not a perfect fit, since people certainly don't visit webcomic sites the same way they would a portal, news site, search engine, or internet forum, but it's better than what we had. That doesn't mean I don't think the guidelines need some massaging, but I don't think it's in our best interests to go back to a balkanized set of rules again. It is important to keep in mind that WP:WEB is just a guideline, which is a very different thing from a policy. Even notability itself is a guideline. They're both meant to help us maintain articles that abide by what's truly important, the three main content policies: WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. It would be nice if we could apply the policies directly, but since they cover all possible content, they're often too vague for that. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 11:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Webcomics of Ukraine

Should we categorize by country? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comixpedia does it, but I don't think it's very effective. Also note Megatokyo. Nifboy 04:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Categorizing by country probably isn't worth the effort. In many cases it's hard to verify, and often it isn't even relevant. Categorizing by a comic's original language may be useful, though. If we go that route, though, lets not create a category for English-language strips; since this is en, that should be assumed unless otherwise mentioned. Actually, I have a question about categories in general. We've got a number of subcategories now (e.g., Category:Sprite webcomics, Category:Horror webcomics, etc.). Should webcomics be in both the main Category:Webcomics and also the sub, or just in the sub? –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 10:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • What I did on Comixpedia was have the infobox template automagically add the webcomics category. Adding it manually to each page would be a pain. Nifboy 15:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The {{Infobox Webcomic}} template used to auto-include the webcomics category, but that functionality was removed in November. I think it's because of the kind of brain dead way template-included categories work. When you remove a template that silently adds a category, you have to edit the article again before the category actually goes away. We've been manually adding cats ever since. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 16:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to nominate Category:Webcomics by country and Category:Webcomics of Ukraine for deletion in favor of sorting by language. Should we go with Category:Webcomics by language or Category:Non-English webcomics? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Buckley (artist) protected; requesting comments

I wanted to get some feedback from the WikiProject over an edit war at Tim Buckley (artist). It stems over a Criticism section that was added to the article a month or so ago. Take a look at the talk page and you'll see that the discussion has gotten fairly heated. In response, I temporarily axed the criticism section, protected the article, then asked the participants to hammer together something that actually complied with WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NPA. I'd like more eyes on this one, but before taking it to higher levels, I wanted to shop here first. If you look in the article's history, you'll be able to see the criticism section in its various incarnation. Thanks. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Update: After review, I decided that criticism section didn't come anywhere close to meeting WP:V, WP:NOR, or WP:NPOV. Having failed to meet any of the three content policies, I deleted it with a warning not to recreate it without adequate sourcing. The article is now unprotected. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of concluded webcomics

Do we really need this? I never remember to update it when I add Category:Concluded webcomics to an article, and the list itself contains no more information than the category does. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Nifboy 22:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Hah! –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll give this a couple more days to get a response, and then I'll prod the article. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, yeah I think it would be good to keep. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so how is it different from the category? I noticed there's one redlink in it, but if it's to be used as a list for comics we don't have articles for, the question of verifiability and maintainability is bound to come up. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning the recent spate of deletion nominations

Sorry for clogging the page with AfDs and PRODs. I know it's out of character for me to be nominating so many, but last week I went digging for lost sheep, and boy did I find a lot of them. Some were so far away from meeting the big three content guidelines that even I couldn't justify keeping them. I've been nominating just a few a day, to avoid causing a backlash, but it looks like they've snowballed anyway. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 23:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, I've been working on a document that addresses the most common webcomic AfD complaints. If anyone wants to modify it, be my guest. It's currently at User:Adashiel/Why delete. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New look for Template:Infobox Webcomic

User:Someguy0830 made some format changes to the Infobox, so you might want to take a look at it. I kinda wish he'd mentioned it here first, but personally, I like it. It's more compact and handles ginormous URLs better. There is one gotcha, though. Because of the way the url field renders now, unless it has a single bare URL (e.g., http://foo.com/), it doesn't look right. For example, if you were to put two sites in the url field or if you added a comment about the site's availability, it looks a little messed up. Just try it and you'll see what I mean. I don't know enough about templates to fix it, so I've been moving URL comments to the article text and for sites with two URLs, I just move them out of the infobox and put them in an external links section. That may be best practice anyway. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted it and made some improvements. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links in list of webcomics

There's a proposal on Talk:list of webcomics#External Links to remove the external links for each webcomic entry. They were actually removed yesterday, but I reverted it back to the old format as I didn't feel there was sufficient consensus to make the change. Your input would be much appreciated. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 11:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evil, Inc.

Evil, Inc. really should not be a disambig page, and Evil, Inc. (Hardy Boys) should be moved back to it's original location. I personally don't like disambig pages with 2 links in them (everyone has to use an extra click), and much prefer something like:

This article is about the Hardy Boys novel, for the webcomic see Evil, Inc. (webcomic)

Although the webcomic being a redlink, I wouldn't even like to see it there. Still, the dab page is pretty useless. I've not taken this to WP:RM as I can't stand some of the pencil pushing bureaucracy and process there. So if others agree, can some admin just move the pages back? - Hahnchen 08:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As the admin who regularily takes care of WP:RM, I'm slightly offended by the accusation of pencil-pushing... —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 14:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keen Toons and KeenCAST

Do any of you guys here think that it would be a good idea to merge these two articles into the Keenspot article? I mean, the Keenspot article isn't particulary long, and the 2 other articles are pretty short. And they're all closely inter-related anyway, I just think it'd be easier to navigate, having KeenCAST redirect to Keenspot wouldn't exactly throw off the reader. I'm not going to make the changes in case I'm accused of deleting them on the sly, but if you like it, roll with it. - Hahnchen 02:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't have much objection, so long as the cast and toon content doesn't overshadow the rest. After all, Keen's just a bit player in animation and podcasting. As a side note, I've been meaning to give the Keenspot article a touch-up for awhile now, but, of course, laziness has always won out. I'd like it to be at least as useful as the Comic Genesis article, though. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OS-tan?

Anyone have thoughts on adding OS-tan to our portfolio? I don't think it belongs on the list or should have an infobox, but I've considered adding our banner. Though it clearly involves sequential art, it's one of those rare phenomena that likely would have remained unknown to English speakers had it never received a Wikipedia article. That makes me a little hesitant to cover it without buy-in. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up at Count Your Sheep

There's a fellow with a very odd theory concerning the characters of Count Your Sheep. I'm extremely sleep-deprived, which is allowing me to assume good faith and call it original research rather than vandalism, but it's not really something we can keep in the article. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 06:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I talked with the contributor who added the theory and I think the situation has been resolved. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

This poor webcomic has had more articles deleted than any other, I think. For reference:

It's also been speedied a number of times, the most recent being today by me. The thing is, each recreation is by a different contributor, and the articles' styles appear to be dissimilar. It makes me think perhaps it just got off on the wrong foot by having an article for it created too early and then got stuck in the whole CSD G4 recreation of deleted material loop thing. I held my nose and did an Alexa search and it came back with a surprising 49,447 with an upward trend. My Google search returned 82,600 hits. The references to it seem to be mostly from blogs, but I'm looking for more notable sources. I took a look at it, and I'm actually pretty impressed; it has sort of a Harvey Birdman kinda vibe to it.

So, what do you think? Right now The Adventures of Dr. McNinja exists as a {{deletedpage}}, which was my doing, but I have started a discussion on its talk page. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I merged the histories of the articles Dr McNinja and Dr. McNinja into The Adventures of Dr. McNinja. Only administrators can see them right now since they're deleted, but if the article comes up for undeletion or is undeleted, I figured it would be useful to have all the versions under one title. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 07:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This one definitely deserves an article. Let me know if it comes up for DRV again, and I'll add my support. Sad, the tide seems to have turned against webcomics. Trivial comics that are old are included, and highly notable ones like Dr. McNinja are excluded, with page re-creation forcibly blocked.--Eloquence* 00:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eve (Applegeeks) --> Applegeeks ?

I recently made an attempt to redirect Eve (Applegeeks) into the main Applegeeks article. It was quickly reverted, however, so I am bringing the matter up for discussion on Applegeeks here. I'd like your input. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism sections

Lately I've been running into a lot of these in articles for comics and their authors, but most aren't compatible with WP:LIVING or WP:RS. No webcomic author counts as a public figure, so the sourcing requirements are very stringent. Yet most criticism I've seen is completely bereft of sourcing, while the rest consists of blogs, forum posts, and personal web sites. Those aren't allowed. So, much to the irritation of some, I've been chopping it all out. If I do it to an article you watch, apologies, but don't shoot the messenger. This is policy straight from Jimmy Wales, and is in direct response to complaints to the Wikimedia Foundation. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That's JT for ya. But good work. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
On the one hand that's perfectly fair; criticism, being a matter of opinion, should be handled with extreme delicacy in a fact-based document. On the other hand, since webcomic criticism is almost entirely blog-based (Comixpedia being the only exception I can think of offhand), this seems like a major culling of available secondary sources not just on criticism, but on webcomics in general. Redneckgaijin 17:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Technically all criticism should be referenced in some manner, but the major concern is unsourced or poorly sourced criticism directed towards individuals. Tim Buckley's article, for example, regularly attracts attention from people pissed off at him for his forum policies or the incident with his WoW guild. I've had to clean out accusations of pedophilia against Bleedman, and Dan Kim on a number of occasions. Shmorky's article, ugh, well, I'm not sure what to do with that, or with a few of his comics (Smut in particular). And, of course, people still haven't forgiven Squidi. It's a pain in the ass, but enforcing WP:LIVING is utterly non-negotiable. Jimbo Wales made that clear enough in this statement. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{webcomicepisode}}

I've finally gotten around to making {{webcomicepisode}}. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updating the infobox?

I've been moving deleted articles over to Comixpedia this week and I noticed Xaviar Xerexes added several new fields to their version of the Infobox:

rss = (appears as "Update feed:" on the infobox)
format =
publisher =
cost = (appears as "Price:" on the infobox)

Think we ought to do the same? Adding those fields actually caused some headache for Comixpedia, since their template is like our old one and breaks if you leave out any fields. I don't think ours would have the same problem though. The fair use bots regularly chomp out the image and caption fields without causing any damage. We'd want to auto-hide the new fields, of course, but that shouldn't be an issue, either since most of our fields do that already. I'm no expert on templates, though. CyberSkull, you have any idea? –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

RSS feed I'm not particularly fond of, because of Wikipedia's "not a repository of links" clause, which Comixpedia explicitly ignores. Format I think came up before and was deemed too vague and, often, too inconsistent. Publisher is not a bad idea, although I'm not sure if that means print or "host" or "affiliations" (e.g. Blank Label, etc) or any combination of the above; Xerxes intended it to mean "host". Price I don't feel real strong about one way or the other. As a side note, Xerxes would, in fact, like help updating his templates. I only vaguely understand WP:QIF. Nifboy 00:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't have much opinion one way or the other, either, but it's kind of a pain in the butt having to deal with two different infobox formats. I wish I could help more with the templates, but I'm pretty clueless about the nuts and bolts. Perhaps they should update to a more recent version of MediaWiki, but since Wikipedia has deprecated QIF in favor of #if (i.e., they exchanged one form of gobbledigook with another kind the code geeks think is more elegant), that might not be so simple. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Portal

I've just created Portal:Internet, please contribute! Computerjoe's talk 16:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updating Comixpedia

Over the past week or two I've transferred hundreds of webcomics, both current and deleted, over to Comixpedia. While I'm sure there are dozens of webcomics we don't know about hidden in the dark recesses of Wikipedia, for the ones we do know about, they're now represented over there. If you have any particular articles you keep track of, it'd be cool if you would occasionally update their Comixpedia counterparts. If you do, however, there are a few things to keep in mind:

  • Their infobox has more fields. Currently, those are: "rss=", "format=", "publisher=", and "cost=". Furthermore, their infobox is fragile, so you can't leave any fields out. It's okay if the fields are blank, but they do have to be there. Also, the first line of the Infobox should be: {{Infobox webcomic| . Notice the small "w" and the pipe ( | ); both are required. Right now there are a bunch of articles with broken infoboxes, but those are slowly getting fixed.
  • Their categories are different. The list is available at Comixpedia:List of Categories.
  • They have a few different templates. Use {{stub}} instead of {{webcomics-stub}}. Also add {{credit}} to any documents from Wikipedia you transfer over. This is for GFDL compliance.
  • Articles transferred over will have lots of redlinks in them. You can blue them back up by prepending a "Wikipedia: to them (e.g., [[foo]] becomes [[Wikipedia:foo]]).
  • They're using an old version of MediaWiki, so not everything works over there. In addition to the fragile Infobox, the new references method doesn't work. You can still use the old one, though.
  • They don't really have a good place for centralized discussion on-wiki at the moment. The Comixpedia folk prefer to use their forum, but some people (myself included) are having trouble getting their forum accounts activated. There's some kind of email hold-up, I think.

Anyway, have at it. Personally, I'm going to take a breather. When you start having dreams about transwiki'ing webcomics, you know it's time to take a break. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 23:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Gallagher

I just locked this article down and am looking for some advice. I looked at Gallagher's article and noticed there was a section lambasting him over some suggestive artwork he'd done in the past. It was a blatant WP:LIVING violation, so I reverted it. When I discovered there was an edit war going on over it, I also protected the article. So now I'm in the hotseat as the admin who made everybody get out of the pool. I don't read Megatokyo, and I'd rather not have to go digging through /b/ of all things to find out just what the hell is going on. Can anyone here give me a 30 second summary? I'd be much obliged. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Is this information found in a reliable, reputable third-paty source with a reputation for fact-checking an accuracy? If not, kill it, per Wikipedia's official policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. We're creating an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia people have written on message boards and blogs. -- Dragonfiend 17:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, there was some sort of attack site set up by the /b/ people and they tried to pass it off as a notable source. It clearly didn't make the grade, so I removed it. I think I've got a better handle on the situation now, in any case. It seems pretty clear cut, though I still don't know much about the history. It'd be nice to have a general impression of that, but I can press the case on policy grounds without it. It's WP:LIVING, after all, so we're supposed to shoot first and ask questions later. Even when the dust clears from this, that article is going to need help. It's largely unsourced, but I don't follow Megatokyo, and there's not much I can do to renovate it. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 17:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've unprotected the article. Hopefully I won't have to lock it down again. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vanity and POV edits to Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki

Somewhat similar to the Fred Gallagher situation above, User:Xuanwu is inserting unreliable/POV/Vanity information about how he got banned from a webcomics forum into the Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki article. I've reverted it twice, but others may want to keep it on their watch lists as well. I'm also open to any suggestions on how to encourage editors to follow WP:V. -- Dragonfiend 21:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I've left a notice on the Sparkling Generation talk page. I don't know what it is about webcomic artists and internet forums, but they always seem to spawn this kind of thing. Why anyone would think a spat on an internet forum merits attention here is beyond me. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessments

CyberSkull modified {{webcomicsproj}} so it can include WP:1.0-style assessments. You can assign specific classes by adding |class=foo to the template, where "foo" is one of the following:

So, the template would look something like: {{webcomicsproj|class=Stub}}

FA and GA stand for feature and good articles, respectively, and have to go through the process to qualify. The others are more or less value judgements. The guidelines are available at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. We've got tons of stub and start class articles, some Bs, but I doubt we've got anything that's ready for an A. I've made some assignments, mostly stubs and articles I think are pretty strong, but there's a lot in-between. The articles that haven't been assessed yet are in Category:Unassessed webcomic articles. I guess now would be about time to do the Worklist. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll create some basics at Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Assesment. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I'm working on assigning classes, but I welcome oversight and assistance. (*beg* *beg*) In fact, if you think I'm being a double dumbass in my grading, by all means tell correct me. It's virtually impossible to piss me off. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Go nuts with assigning Stub and Start classes. If your not sure about a B class, bring it up in discussion. A class must be agreed upon by the project. FA class is assigned when the article reaches featured status. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Unknown-importance webcomic articles has been created and populated! Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • To put it mildly, I'm very skeptical of the importance categories. Specifically identifying articles that are important to WP:1.0 is a good idea, but labelling articles as being of low importance with categories is not. I understand the reason why the concept was introduced — it lets you triage articles and decide which ones should get the most attention — but it's a source of ill will. Because the stamp is flying on our own banner, most of that sentiment will be directed at the WikiProject, which is something we just can't afford. It will also be a point to edit war over, which is always a bad thing. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Let me offer a solution. Most importantly, {{webcomicproj}} should not assign a default importance category. I think we should deprecate the use of categories for this altogether, except to mark articles that are high or top priority. There are a few other projects that do use categories, but these are mathematics, chemistry, physics, and military history — subjects where assigning importance is far clearer than for webcomics. Instead, lets define importance within the assessment worklist itself, and then mark the important ones within their webcomicsproj templates. The non, low, and mid articles don't need any signifiers in their templates and don't need categories. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a tad confused. At the moment the banner assigns everything to Category:Unknown-importance webcomic articles. Do you not want to use the importance scale at all? I understand your concerns. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Buckley...again

I've had to lock down Tim Buckley's article yet again. It's the same old story: people bitching about the Warcraft thing and his various forum policies. I had to protect it because the material had been reverted several times. I'm really getting sick of this, and am thinking about turning the article into a redirect. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I have redirected this article to Ctrl+Alt+Del. I opted not to merge any of the content from Buckley's article into CAD's, but should someone who is more familiar with both the comic and the author choose to do so, I won't object. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-working the project page?

Now that we've got preliminary assessments for all our webcomic articles, perhaps it's time to retire the Expand, Good, and Kick Ass subpages. They're mostly out of date and the WP:1.0 stuff is probably going to be easier to maintain. We might also want to take the opportunity to revamp the project page itself. Perhaps we could look at the other WikiProject to get some ideas? –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newshounds Class rating

I noticed that in the WikiProject, the article for Newshounds has been rated as being kick ass. However, the article itself has only been given Start class. I don't understand why, the article has been referenced, includes images, storylines, books and external links. ISD 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That was just a quick assessment by me most likely. If it is higher quality list it on the assessment page with the appropriate tags. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've moved Newshounds to B-Class and I've nominated it for good article status. ISD 06:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth

This article is in dire need of help. It's about the #1 MMORPG, hosted on Gamespy, talked about by Blizzard itself, and recently the author linked to our document on it. Thus it gets a lot of attention from newbies, resulting in a deeply pathological article filled to the brim with cruft, speculation, and self-reference. It needs to be hacked down and beaten into shape, but right now I don't have much Wiki-time to devote to it. If you'd like to take a stab at it, be my guest. If the fanboys howl at you for it, let me know and I'll read them the riot act. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 17:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And if anybody questions why I stripped almost a hundred "reference" links out of Penny Arcade (comic), that article is a perfect example of why. I tried reading it, and all I could focus on was numbers. Nifboy 22:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted some huge vandalism to the article. I'd help out more, but I haven't kept up with the comic in ages. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for deletion

I have just voted on a webcomic AfD. As part of the process I read through recent discussions on this project talk page. It was interesting to note that the members of the project have been through a process of attempting to formulate rules on deciding which webcomics were notable and appear to have been unable to reach a consensus - though, under strong guidance from Abe Dashiell, there seems to be a positive movement toward shifting webcomic stubs from Wiki onto Comixpedia.org. Unfortunately, the general attitude then is to leave the AfD process to clear away any mess. I would have hoped that members of the project would have taken more responsibility for their own area of interest and made positive decisions themselves as to which articles are worth keeping and which are not. Stub articles on topics of specialised interest, such as webcomics, are prime candidates for listing on AfD. Sometimes such stubs need time to attract the right editors and grow. Might it be worth considering having an article page on, say - Minor webcomics, and move stubs onto this page where they can be worked on for a longer period of time, and where they are less at risk from being deleted. Or are there too many such stubs for such a page to be workable? SilkTork 08:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  • An entry on minor webcomics has been proposed before, but I doubt it would survive an AfD. The problem is it would cover content that's implied to be non-notable, which pretty much guarantees a deletion nomination. To be honest, I'd probably even support deleting it myself, not so much because I'd be concerned about notability, but such an article would be nightmarish to maintain. Personally, I'm usually fine with stub articles, and I prefer to give them time to grow before considering them for AfD or prod. As far as Comixpedia is concerned, I don't believe we should regard it as our dumping ground for unwanted articles. It's a separate project with different guidelines, so pretty much any webcomic can have an article there. I frequently comment on AfDs and prods when I've copied an article to Comixpedia, but that's not meant to be an endorsement for deletion. Rather, it's to let people who want to work an article about the subject of a deletion nomination know they still can regardless of whether it stays on Wikipedia. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • An article like Minor webcomics would fail in every possible respect. Wikipedia is not a directory, having a list of minor webcomics would be as useful as a list of websites of amateur photographers, or an index of every porn site. - Hahnchen 03:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Good points. I suppose the system is unfolding as it should. SilkTork 12:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ratings

Quick question: how is the rating of a webcomic determined for the purpose of including it in the infobox? I've seen the rating for 8-Bit Theater removed and reinstated over the last few days, which got me to wonder about rating, specifically if we should rely on any official information or just go by feeling (the latter not seeming very scientific to me). --R. Wolff 19:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Unless a webcomic has an actual rating (and I don't that the Motion Picture Association of America has officially rated 8-Bit Theater) then there shouldn't be a rating. We definately shouldn't be creating encyclopedia articles around how we feel. -- Dragonfiend 19:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I thought so. Thanks. --R. Wolff 06:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a bit of a moot point in any case. That field doesn't even display. Personally, I'm not comfortable giving ratings unless the comic self-identifies as such. Even then it's iffy, since a lot of times the authors themselves don't understand what the various ratings mean. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 16:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting an article looked at

A while back, someone added a WikiProject Webcomics infobox to Talk:Realms of Ishikaze, rating it as Start-class. I've worked some more on the article since then, and I'd like to get it re-rated. I'd like to get it to the point of being a B-class article or better; if it doesn't meet those criteria now, can someone tell me why so that I can make the appropriate changes? Where do I submit this? --ComputerSherpa 22:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Howard (American webcomic artist)

Several people, including an anonymous editor who is very likely Sean Howard himself, are warring over the content of this article. Apparently Howard doesn't like Wikipedia and the article is frequently being edited to reflect this opinion. Unfortunately, it's being done in an excessively self-referential way. His detractors have also edited the article to insult him. Unfortunately, right now I don't have time to sort through this and come up with a good solution. Since Howard has said he doesn't like the fact he has an article, perhaps a redirect of some kind would be in order, but I doubt an AfD would succeed. If anyone more familiar with the situation could lend a hand, I'd appreciate it. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I've added it to my watchlist and will keep an eye on it. I'm not totally familiar with the situation, but familiar enough with our policies to remove insourced and/or POV edits. -- Dragonfiend 16:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomic Authors and WP:V

I have been reviewing some of the webcomic author articles and noticed that some of them are not verified with external sources. Additionally, I've found several that are "sourced" with non-reliable sources like LiveJournal blogs, MySpace pages, or the author's personal websites. I will post up a list here when I get done with my review (or you can just stalk my edit history). As interested parties in Webcomic articles, I'd ask that those participating in this project work to correctly source these articles. Thanks.--Isotope23 14:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the list so far... only halfway through the alphabet:
I wouldn't mind if we redirected most of our artists to their respective comics. Few of them meet WP:BIO, and their articles are usually permanent stubs. When they are expanded, typically they're just collections of trivia, much of which is unverifiable. Even worse are the controversial authors whose articles are frequent targets for personal attacks. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I personally don't have time right now to make a project of this, but at some point we should sort through our authors and decide what to do with them. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I am generally in agreement. Nifboy 03:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Ehhhh? Why is Takehiko Inoue in here? He's a manga author, he created Slam Dunk and Vagabond. Shaenon Garrity should not be redirected because Narbonic isn't the only work she did, also she falls under WP:BIO as she won one of the Friends of Lulu awards one year. Tania del Rio too (she wrote for Marvel and Archie Comics). Pending sourcing of course. ColourBurst 06:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Takehiko Inoue made the webcomic Buzzer Beater. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zap!

Could someone check the history of the deleted copy of Zap! (webcomic)? I'm not sure, but it may have been messed up prior to it's prod. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DrunkDuck

Could someone take a look at the article to see if it can be elevated to B-class? It's much more cohesive than it was when Abe marked it as Start-class, but it still needs a bit of work, notably in citations.

Would it suffice to have the site's creator verify the accuracy of the information, inasfar as creating a primary source? I've had a hard time finding solid sources for much of the text due to the fact that the site's been wiped about three times since it was founded.--RadariG 19:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call for references on "The Jar"

About a year ago I rescued The Jar from deletion, making it a modest one-paragraph article backed up by a reference to the Internet Archive version of its archives (the original archives were taken offline). Since then a whole bunch of additional material was added, but unfortunately no further references were provided in the process. It's a bit tricky coming up with references for a webcomic whose main archives have been deleted and whose Internet Archive records are incomplete, I don't suppose there's anyone here who's familiar with it who knows of some sources that can be used? The article may be going back up for deletion again soon, the only alternative might be to trim it back down to the one-paragraph version I threw together originally. Bryan 03:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "10 Tips for Successful Webcomicking"

Still on the busy side so can't come back from wikibreak just yet, but the following blog by Clay of Sexy Losers may amuse:

http://hardartist.livejournal.com/87700.html

Particularly item 8. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 09:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSD now properly applies to nn-webcomics

Sometimes, I'd tag webcomics with a csd notice with a db and hope for an admin who applies A7 in a liberal manner. Well the deletion of webcomics can now be aided as absolutely nn-comics can be tagged with the relatively new {{db-web}} and now properly falls under CSD criteria. - Hahnchen 03:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a consensus on running gags sections?

On the 8 bit theatre talk there's been a short debate on whether or not a running gags section should be introduced (back into) the article. I was wondering if there's any consensus on such sections? - Bisected8 10:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, no, but I think there's a tendency for editors (myself included) to see them as trivia. Nifboy 17:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What makes a webcomic artist?

From the Nowhere Girl article:

In 2003, Justine Shaw was the first webcomic artist to be nominated for an Eisner Award when she was nominated for "talent deserving of wider recognition" and her Nowhere Girl was nominated for "best new series."

This is not what I'm complaining about (not really, at least). But Jason Shiga won that year in the "wider recognition" category (he won the Ignatz that year as well) and his Fleep comic is serialized online (originally in Asian Week and Modern Tales, but there's a link in the article). He is currently not catted as a webcomic artist.

So what makes a webcomic artist? Do they have to be serialized online? If their comic gets printed, does that negate their "webcomicity"? What if their comic was printed first? Does being self-published count against them? ColourBurst 18:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say to be a webcomic it would have to have been published online initially, and that would have to be the original plan. - Bisected8 19:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"The original plan" matters less and less now that more webcomic artists want to get their comics out in print form as well as web form. Shaenon Garrity's article about him seems to describe him as a multi-format artist (but that includes having webcomics, and other hybrid comic artists including Lea Hernandez, Kazu Kibuishi, Raina Telgemeier, and Svetlana Chmakova are catted as webcomic artists.). ColourBurst 20:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twokinds

Since Twokinds was deleted and it's unlikely that it will ever be recreated (check the AfD log), it would be nice to replace all links to said article with the url to the comic. Shinobu 04:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reman Mythology on DRV

I have put Reman Mythology up for deletion review here. Not mentioned in the AfD was the awards it was nominated for nor the awards it had won. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Cyantian Chronicles wiki page is up

I have created The Cyantian Chronicles Wiki page. I would appreciate it if people would look at it and tell me what they think about it. Also, it wouldn't hurt if someone could add stuff. I'm kinda good at reviewing, but not so much on writing. And yes, Akaelae redirects there. Madd the sane 06:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this project supported at all?

A successful "Keep" vote (which also takes a lot of time and effort) is simply bypassed by merging the article (actually converting it to a footnote in some other article.)The Wikipedians could merge, say, all Keenspot comics in Keenspot if it was for them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.225.146.100 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Webcomics_a69b.html"