Talk:Webcomic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WWW

This article is part of WikiProject Webcomics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to webcomics on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Webcomic, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of Top-importance within webcomics for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
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.
??? This article has no rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and provide comments here.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Medium

I think that even with the organizational reworking done on this article (I compared the current version to the earliest one and boy, is it a lot better!), this section requires an overhaul. Specifically, I think it is a lack of focus and I am partly to blame for it as I edited and elaborated on parts of it. I think the problem is that Medium can be interpreted in different ways. As an art medium? As a medium of communication/mass entertainment? I would like to go with art medium as that seems to be the bulk of this section's focus. But the use of the Internet should be covered too. Perhaps some extra focus would be better if we approached this section in essay form and organize it accordingly? --Kainee 01:31, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Split the heading in half. Named the two halves, Form and Art. Hopefully this will avoid the murkiness...--Kainee 04:29, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
I re-combined your two sections and edited them to be much tighter. The murkiness was from throwaway sentences like "In these continuity-driven webcomics, panels can vary in size and shape." In what comics can't the panels vary in size or in shape? "The prevalent form that the quintessential webcomic takes is in either a strip or page form, usually on a gag-a-day format." OK, so the simultaneously "prevalent" and "quintessential form is a) the strip, b) the page, or c) gag-a day. There can't be three prevalent forms. I also restored some of the examples you removed. Three example ought to be the norm. A single example does not adequately make a point. I know, a lot of the problems in this section where there whn you found it Kainee, but your edits seemed to be confusing matters rather than clearing them up. I think the Medium section is much clearer, tighter, and contains concrete examples now -- maybe we ought to look at the other sections and get them to be as tight and useful as Medium is now. For example, from the "Industry" section: "Recently, during a comic convention, Kurtz declared ..." When was recently? What comics convention? Who is Kurtz? Why does this sentence belong in an encyclopedia entry? Dragonfiend 05:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Here is your re-written section in full here:
While many webcomics adhere strictly to the traditional newspaper or magazine format, some artists have taken advantage of the web's unique abilities. Scott McCloud, one of the first advocates of webcomics, has pioneered the idea of the infinite canvas, where webcomics (such as Cuentos De La Frontera and e-sheep) are free to spread out in every direction indefinitely rather than be confined to normal print dimensions. Other comics, such as Sluggy_Freelance and Argon Zark, have experimented by incorporating animation into their comics. {If brevity were the issue of the day then infinite canvas wouldn't even be touched on here as it is NOT a common experiment and only one of the few ideas bouncing around the webcomic community}
Because webcomics are not subject to the content restrictions of publishers or comic syndicates, they enjoy an artistic freedom similar to underground and alternative comics. {The original sentence was to show a similarity in self-publication not just artistic freedom. The condensation took some of the subtlety away.} Some comics (such as Sexy Losers and Fetus-X) {Fetus-X entry is up for deletion-- presumably because it is not notable} take advantage of the fact that internet censorship is virtually nonexistent. Some comics explore niche genres such as video game-oriented comics or transsexual biographies. {I would say that with the popularity of gamer comics that it is far from a niche genre for webcomics. The original sentence actually only cites this as one end of a range of genres. This meaning is lost in the revision.}
Still, the most common form that a webcomic takes is the traditional comic strip, such as Penny Arcade, PvP, Sinfest, or CTRL-ALT-DEL. The gag-a-day comic strip lends itself easily to popular consumption as they are episodic in nature and do not require much foreknowledge of the comic itself. This format allows for quicker, more frequent updates and allows the artist to build up an audience quickly. However, on occasion, these webcomics can have lengthy story arcs. The fact that comprehensive archives are often instantly available makes more complex plotlines and characterization possible. {I mention the page form because there's been a growing number of graphic-novel and manga influenced webcomics so it is actually relevant to recognize that. Reorganization is still needed of course.}
Common artistic styles of webcomic strips include sprite comic, pixel art, clip art, found art and photography. {Far from it... I would say that illustration is by far the most common artistic method used with all the varying styles implied.} These styles can also be considered to be part of the Copy and Paste movement fostered by computers and the Internet. There has also been experimentation with 3D art in the webcomic medium.
Webcomics can also be presented in the same manner as traditional comic books, manga and graphic novels. These comics, such as Megatokyo, Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki and Rules of Make Believe, come in a page form rather than a strip form and can be posted in a multiple page format such as chapters or books. {This should be moved up and some people have never read any comic books, manga or graphic novel which is why I went to the pains of describing the page form more clearly. Referencing Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki and Rules of Make Believe are again examples of advertisements. There are far more well-known webcomics done in graphic novel form that can be cited if you insist on 3 examples.}
I'm not saying my edits are perfect but I am saying that editing to condense it so drastically is a disservice to the topic, especially when it doesn't even provide a good overview. I'm not trying to offend but I'm trying to show you my logic with why I respectfully disagreed with your edit. If you still do not agree then there's nothing I can do about that. The other sections need to be edited over too. I think I was reaching for material when I was filling out those sections since at the time, I was re-organizing the page and trying to fill out the newly made sections with the right info. --Kainee 05:37, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Not trying to start an edit war, but infinite canvas is a very important, unique aspect to webcomics. Any encyclopedia article should have it. --DNicholls 05:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
No, I agree that it's an important concept. What I was trying to say was that using the logic of being concise and brief where none of the details get mentioned, infinite canvas would be too detailed to include in such a brief summary. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. Did not realize a edit war would ensue... was just trying to edit. I thought we were going for concise writing style with a nice general summary of aspects of webcomics. --Kainee 05:50, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Also, perhaps elaboration then on the various styles or genres possible? --Kainee 04:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
No, I don't think the article needs much elaboration on styles or genres -- that could go in entries for particular styles or genres. Dragonfiend 05:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Kainee, you now have, among other things, a "Form" section that talks about "exploring subject areas," "game-oriented comics" and "transsexual biographies." This is all content, not form. You also have a "Art & Media" section that talks about nothing other than clip art comics. In your attempts to remove "fan bias," you've removed most of the concrete examples of the topics described, while adding references to the "fame" of your favorite webcomics artists. You've also added red and broken links. I don't think, as a whole, your edits have improved this article. I'd suggest starting with smaller edits first, rather than making large scale changes to this article. If you aren't familiar with infinite canvas comics, please don't edit the paragraphs about infinite canvas comics. Dragonfiend 05:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
As I've mentioned before, I'm not a particular fan of any webcomic. I just know that there are commonly accepted "famous" webcomics. Those are the ones I try to cite first before resorting to more obscure references. I did not mean to give the impression I was trying to play favorites. However, I do think that your edit was a lot more extreme as you rephrased and deleted sections while I only moved text, which is much easier to fix.
Also, the Art & Media section was meant to be an edit for purposes of organization. Obviously, sprite comics are not the only comics around. I was hoping others would like to contribute more info there. I did not expect such a vehement refusal of something as simple as organization. --Kainee 05:50, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
I find it ironic that, between the three of us, all editing the same night, we have completely different methods for going about fixing the article: Kainee wants to organize, Dragonfiend wants to trim, and I want to do a little of both. Nifboy 06:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

On the 4-koma thing: my point in including it is as a way of showing how web comics draw upon layouts and styles from outside their own culture. For example, Ghastly is Canadian but lays out his comic like a Japanese artist. I would say this is a significant demonstration of web comics assimilating ideas from other cultures. At the very least, the contrast of 4x1 (Western), 1x4 (Japanese, though arguably could be Asian), 2x2 (Hybrid), and full page is worthwhile for the sake of completeness, since all four are arguably different in terms of aesthetics and certainly in origin. Xuanwu 20:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I feel obligated to note Real Life started using the 2x2 format almost a year before Megatokyo did, so I'm not sure if you can justifiably call the 2x2 format an "asian/western hybrid." If anything, it's an adaptation to the web, where your options are a vertical layout, small poor-quality images, or forcing 800x600's to scroll horizontally (PvP went "widescreen" sometime in 2003). Back in 2000 anything wider than 800 pixels wasn't very common. Nifboy 20:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
While Real Life did use the 2x2 first, Fred Gallagher has said that the reason Megatokyo chose the 2x2 was due to creative differences between himself and Largo (Rodney). Fred wanted a 1x4 Japanese style, Rodney a standard 4x1. The compromise of a 2x2 was, as Fred said, a hybrid of the two styles that was consciously derived from the western and eastern styles. Real Life probably not so much. Okashina Okashi is also known to have chosen the 2x2 format for much the same reasons as Megatokyo. So, in those two specific instances (with SP thrown in for a more popular reference), 2x2 definitely represents a mix of eat and west. That's why I included the caveat of "sometimes 2x2." Xuanwu 20:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems that this section still needs some work in order to get rid of that pesky original research tag (this section and the community one, in my opinion). Unfortunately I suggest doing this the easy way by trimming away parts I beleive are difficult to give good references to:

The web has, at least potentially, several advantages over the conventional form of publishing. It has removed many of the traditional barriers that discourage independent comics artists from having their work published.

While it isn't wrong to start the section with these two sentences, they create a NPOV problem by only focusing on what the advantages are while saying nothing about the disadvantages. Second, I believe the second sentence would be better placed in the business section since I believe it is those kind of barriers that primarily have been removed.

[...]- this solves the traditional problem of having to reduce detail or cut out background art to make room for them in panels with a lot of conversation, which often frustrates comic artists.

I'm not sure if this is the reason for the animated speech balloons in Sam and Max cartoons or if it is a source of frustration for comic artists. I would have guessed they were meant to increase interaction between the reader and the comic, but that is pure speculation. I suggest removing the part of the sentence unless someone can dig up a reference for it.

On occasion, these types of webcomics have more lengthy story arcs.

This is true of many regular gag strips as well so it seems a bit redundant.

[...]photo-comics such as Reprographics, Fluff in Brooklyn, and Transparent Life have been gaining recognition.

Are these examples well known? I admit to not being very knowledgable about photo-comics, but maybe someone else is.

The fact that comprehensive archives are often instantly available helps make more complex plotlines and characterization possible.

I'd like to remove this sentence.

Some comics (e.g. Leisure Town and Fetus-X) take advantage of the fact that Internet censorship is virtually nonexistent.

It seems a bit odd giving two examples of comics that take advantage of what is the norm. Wouldn't it be more interesting to give examples where the comics content in deed has caused problems. I'm thinking of for example when the conservative webcomic Day_by_Day_(webcomic), which is syndicated on some conservative blogs had some brief nudity http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008694.php, or when Sexy_Losers wanted to join Keenspot, or that PayPal refuses to handle transactions for adult webcomics? a href="http://www.talkaboutcomics.com/blog/?p=514" Epameinondas 02:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fan Bias

I've noticed that some fairly obscure comics get mention in the main body of the entry and I find that the subtle advertising leads to too much of a bias to this article. I personally am not a comic creator or a fan of any particular comic (I don't have an obsession so I'd like to think I'm fairly neutral here)-- I just find the phenomenon really interesting so have read up on it. Would people please refrain from plugging their favorite "diamond in the rough" comic? I know that it is controversial to decide just who deserves mention but perhaps maybe the guideline for that is those comics and personages that really have contributed to the history and trend of webcomics in general? Not just a comic that catches your fancy and you think deserves more attention. I realize it's unfair but this is a general entry so I think mentioning the giants would be better than obscure examples... I'm mainly referring to instances like this:

A prime example of this principle would be the latter-day installments of T Campbell's Fans, or Cayetano Garza's Cuentos De La Frontera, as well as several stories by Patrick Farley of e-sheep.com. Other artists have experimented with the incorporation of animation into their comics (although purists may believe animation has no place in comics). A good example of this would be Argon Zark! by Charley Parker.

or this:

Examples of this story driven chapter form include Rules of Make Believe (ROMB) and Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki (SGVY). The former uses an artistic style based on Chinese manhua, while the latter is heavily influenced by Japanese manga. ROMB updates one page at a time, though it is formally split into chapters. SGVY is an example of a story-driven comic in the humorous vein with updates in multi-page eddas. Other comics in the chapter format include Wish³, which is also available in print, although it is more explicit than the webcomic and Okashina Okashi, which started as a daily gag-a-day strip with some plot, and in recent years, has changed to be more heavily story-driven.

This smacks too much of a bias as I've never heard of these comics and also seems to be far too glowing. I don't really have anything against these comics but it's too blatant. What do people think? Agree? Disagree? --kainee 129.21.190.25 22:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


I think we are already in agreement. We have to deal with vanity. I think it not the fans, but comic creators who are very shameless about plugging their comic. On servel occasions, I revert non notable comics. If you see non notable comic (or think it non notable), feel free to remove it.--Kiba 23:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Already deleted the offending words. Yaaaay, I signed up for an account! ^_^V --Kainee 23:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I restored two paragraphs. Yes, the medium section needs some work, but removing all examples of infinite canvas comics was not an improvement to this article. Dragonfiend 00:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure that there needs to be an example cited at all though as the concept of infinite canvas is explained. Also, I find the comics cited as rather obscure references... clicking on the links only go to a short article stub. Here's a list of the comics cited:
T Campbell's Fans [for infinite canvas]
Cayetano Garza's Cuentos De La Frontera [for infinite canvas]
Patrick Farley of e-sheep.com [infinite canvas]
Argon Zark! by Charley Parker [animation in comics]
Eric Millikin's Fetus-X [uncensored comic]
For the infinite canvas, there are 3 comics cited as examples. I find it suspect that there needs to be so many examples. Perhaps, the list of examples should be pruned at the very least. But I tend to think that the comics cited are for vanity's purpose. Clicking on the links like for T Campbell's Fans leads to stubs, for Argon Zark a page that is claiming to be the first comic and for Fetus-X, a page that is up for deletion. Perhaps leaving Cayetano Garza (as he seems a bit more well known) as the example of infinite canvas would be best. But I replaced Fetus-X with the better known Sexy Losers and I can also replace Argon Zark with Sluggy Freelance as that comic is known to experiment with animations and is really well known.
Would that work as a compromise until the quality of the section can be improved? --Kainee 00:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
T Campbell is a name I reconized. I think I see it his name in comixpedia. --Kiba 01:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, he's an editor. If you read the page on him. But is he notable enough for his webcomic work to be cited as an example? Cat Garza seems to be more of a fixture as I've seen him cited more in context of his work. So, left him as the example... if you have a better idea of who is a good example for infinite canvas... please add it. --Kainee 01:22, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
I think he is one of the cartoonist of Modern Tales, so that make him notable.--Kiba 02:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not really aware of his activities as a webcomic artist. But I think that Modern Tales is advertised as a collective which tends to de-emphasize individual artists' achievements and tries to promote the idea that all the artists are of equally high quality... You have to admit though, someone who's an artist that is part of Modern Tales is not as notable as a giant webcomic that has a really huge audience such as Sluggy, PvP, Penny-Arcade. But if you really feel that T Campbell is so noteworthy, edit the article then. --Kainee 02:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • As a general comment, it's not a bad idea to have multiple examples of things (and three doesn't seem to be excessive for a defining characteristic like infinite canvas, imo, so long as their reference isn't disproportional to their relevance). Let's be careful about deleting things because we haven't heard of it, as opposed to hard stats. I'm kind of delete-happy myself, but webcomics in particular is a phenomenon most people don't understand, and the more we can help them out, the better. --DNicholls 02:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm thinking that mostly it's the open canvas examples that you guys are worried over since I don't hear mention of the other examples I did delete. I do see your point on multiple examples but also at the same time, I think it can tend to clutter the page. Also, I realize that not a lot of people understand webcomics but there should be a level of detail that to be decided on. How in-depth should this article be? I think that since the Medium section is the first section that it should be more general with the ensuing sections gaining more specific details-- sort of easing the reader into it, if you will. But perhaps this all can be solved with another re-structuring? --Kainee 02:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Themes

I suspect it's an artifact from some earlier incarnation of the article, but what on earth is the purpose of the Themes section heading? In what way are the things under it related to the theme of, well, "themes"? I didn't want to just nuke it, because I think the article can use a section break right about there; but still... --Ray Radlein 16:12, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Changed it to History... since it seems to need one. But don't know enough about the history of webcomics to really add to that section... hope people liked the other sections that I added like Industry and Community. --kainee 23:38, 03-28-2005

Well, once I knew enough to get the hell out of the way while you were at work so that you'd stop clobbering my little edits with your huge ones, sure... :-) --Ray Radlein 06:15, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)


One note (assuming that's you still doing all these edits): In general, wiki style is not to wikilink every occurrence of a possible link term (in fact, many people believe that any given term should only be linked once per article). In a long, multipart article (like this one seems to be becoming), it can be okay to link something in one section that was already linked in an earlier section, perhaps; but there really isn't any need to, for instance, wikilink every mention of Something Positive or Megatokyo. --Ray Radlein 10:11, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ah ok, gotcha. This is actually one of my first attempts to edit. But I think I'm done with this page now. I think I've put down all the info that I know to be accurate that I've picked up from lurking on webcomic forums. And sorry about accidentally deleting your little edits. I didn't mean to and I started to get the hang of editing it section by section. Anyway, I'm done with all of the edits I can think of and am ready for a better webcomics expert to add more information to this entry. --kainee 2:15, 03/30/2005

[edit] Page moved

Please, explain to me why the page was moved from Web comic to Webcomic. The typical spelling still is "Web comic."—Boarder8925 04:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Google returns almost three times as many hits for "webcomic" as it does for "web comic". I have noticed that there is absolutely no consistency of use between the two here on Wikipedia (in fact, I think it was just after I commented on that fact one one of the appropriate talk or project pages that the move occurred — so maybe it's all my fault). But then again, I have little room to talk, because I am not terribly consistent with it myself. --Ray Radlein 05:09, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
But "webcomic" is an awkward unnecessary neologism that doesn't appear in dictionaries—it's not a trademark or other standard usage, just a lazy way to type web-comic. It's the way a lot of people write on the Web, but web-comic (or just web comic) is correct established English, and would cause no confusion. —Michael Z. 2005-08-4 17:02 Z
Dictionaries always lag behind current usage. They are descriptive, not wholly prescriptive. — Gwalla | Talk 22:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
"Web comic" means that it is basely a comic, but it just happens to be on the interwebs. "Webcomic" refers to the distinct genre. It's not just a "lazy way to type 'web-comic'". "Correct established English" has nothing to do with it. --8472
Within the webcomics community, the preferred spelling for many, if not the majority, is "webcomic." Of course it's not in dictionaries yet. It's a miracle that "blog" is already in dictionaries. ButteredToast 06:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History expansion ideas

Does anybody have ideas on how we can expands this very lacking section which is history?? And Doctor Fun is a webcomic that I never ever heard of, so I am questioning it popularity status. --Kiba 23:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doctor Fun is generally acknowledged as the first webcomic, so it definitely deserves a mention. As far as history goes, some mention should probably be made of Big Panda, which AIUI was the first dedicated webcomic hosting service, from the ashes of which Keenspot emerged. The standard navigation links and the calendar feature that Keenspot shares with Sluggy (also ex-BP) were BP innovations. I'm not really the one to write that up, though, as by the time I started reading webcomic Keenspot existed and BP had been reduced to an idiosyncratic top sites list—all I know about that stage comes from secondhand hearsay. The founding of Modern Tales might warrant a mention. — Gwalla | Talk 01:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed there was an incomplete sentence so I tried to re-edit it to reflect what the original intentions were. But I don't like the vagueness of which comic is actually the first. So whomever has a better idea of what's accurate, please edit it with dates. Perhaps knowing the exact date each comic was first published would help to settle the problem. --kainee 9:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Where you get these info? I am going to look for webcomics history articles around the net. I think I will add some infomation around Saturady or Sunday. --Kiba 01:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mostly from forum discussions. — Gwalla | Talk 04:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We need some clarification here. A change was just made that now iplies that a comic being published via Usenet/FTP is the "first webcomic". Is webcomic to include all protocols of distribution or is it going to be limited to comics published excusively in the web format (ie, presented as a web page, and not just a downloadable image via any protocol).--bcRIPster 07:02, 17 Jul 2005 (MST)

There are interviews with the creators, on Web only publications like the Webcomics examiner (webcomicsreview.com) , but also in Web "reprints" of paper publications looking at web comics. Most of these interviews have historical information. And there are also many reviews (in the same publications) which deal with the historical aspects of the series while mentioning the influence of other Web comics series, giving historical filiation. --AlainV 15:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think what that edit is trying to say is that Where the Buffalos Roam is the first webcomic that was not originally a print comic (since Doctor Fun started in a college paper). It seems to be splitting hairs, though, since it didn't start on the Web either. — Gwalla | Talk 21:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm wondering where the idea came from that Doctor Fun started in a college paper. I drew a couple cartoons for "The Snapper" (I think that's what it was called) at Millerville University in 1984 but even then I don't think it was called "Doctor Fun". (Maybe this was in an old FAQ somewhere that I wrote.) One Doctor Fun cartoon was reprinted in The Maroon at the U of Chicago, but that was after it started. Several years before I started Doctor Fun all my work was freelance, mostly for magazines. Doctor Fun was intended at the time for online reading only - it was low resolution, 24-bit color - the resolution was too low for print, and almost nobody at the time was interested in color for printer, and not at 24-bit RGB. Ironically, I wasn't looking to have the first cartoon on the World Wide Web - the whole thing was developed to be posted to Usenet, and at the last minute somebody at my work showed me this new "web thing" and I was instantly hooked and retooled everything. David Farley
Hi, I think the line that causes so much controversy is partly my fault as the original line was a sentence fragment so I re-edited to what I thought was the original intention. Maybe I should have deleted it? Or perhaps the question of which was the first webcomic should be stated in the entry itself? If anyone knows dates and can provide them, that would probably help to clear things up...--kainee 129.21.190.25 22:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't completely sure where to put this, in History or Community, but seems like there should be a WCCA mention in here. Awards and recognition in general seem to be a line of thought lacking. --DNicholls 08:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The history section currently lists Bob and George as the first sprite comic, but the sprite comic entry lists Neglected Mario Characters as the first sprite comic. Can someone with a better understanding of sprite comics clear this up? Dragonfiend 00:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

My understanding of it is, B&G is the first sprite comic anyone ever gave a damn about. It is also the second most popular, the first being 8-bit Theatre, with a very large gap between second and third, which I think is Secret of Mana Theater, though it's flash animations and not really comics in any traditional sense. NMC is the typical low-quality trash associated with sprite comics, and the only reason VfD hasn't put it on the chopping block is because its only claim to fame is being the "first". Nifboy 01:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

"Where the Buffalo Roam" is listed as the first "online comic", but it was predated by Joe Ekaitis' "T.H.E. Fox" on QuantumLink, in the late 1980s, where it was advertised as the first online comic. I'd have to contact Joe to find out exactly when it started, and whether it was also distributed on the Internet before WTBR. If not, then WTBR may be the first "Internet comic" instead. --Gentaur 15:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like great historical info, Gentaur! I found this outside verifiable source [1], an interview in which Joe Ekaitis confirms "[I've been cartooning] Since 1986, because that was when I hunkered down and poured what little I have into T.H.E. Fox. It was originally uploaded to CompuServe, then Q-Link and finally, GEnie." On, a related note, considering how much debate there is over which comic was first, and how earlier and earlier ones keep cropping up, I think we ought to list "T.H.E. Fox" as "perhaps the first" or some such. I think with all of these early comics (Dr. Fun, T.H.E. Fox, etc.) their start dates may be verifiable but whether they were "first" really isn't -- it's not verifiable that there wasn't someone else somehwhere in some corner of the internet posting comics earlier. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some ARPANET comic from the 70s or something. Dragonfiend 18:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


Hi there, I'm the owner of PaperDemon.com, an art and writing community website that's been around for a few years. I was wondering if it were possible that we get a small mention in the Webcomics article here at Wikipedia because I believe we are a part of internet history. I've just unveiled a new webcomics section. It's a system specifically designed for sequential art. At DeviantArt and other art community based websites, when you post comic pages, the site has no idea that the images are related and can't list them as one entity in the galleries and can't create any way of navigating from one page of the comic to the next. Our system is specifically designed for sequential art allowing artists to upload a comic cover, separate their comic into story arcs, and upload pages to their comic. Navigation links for navigation of the comic is automatically generated. Members can also post comments on each of the pages of the comics. I think PaperDemon.com may be worthy of a mention because I believe we are the first free community site specifically designed for hosting web comics. If we could also get at least a PaperDemon.com stub started that would be great too. Here's the comics home page:

http://www.paperdemon.com/comics

Here's a sample of a comic:

http://www.paperdemon.com/comic/about/20.html

The comics section of PaperDemon.com launched around 11pm Pacific standard time on October 11, 2006. I'll be watching this page to see what your thoughts are on this. BogusRed 01:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • No you can't, this mention would be considered as advertisement. -- Esurnir 02:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Notable Artists" section

Okay, here's my feelings on this section: It's exceedingly long and full of red links. Many of the blue links on artists are redirects to their comic. I have notability concerns; sure, many of the comics listed are popular, but are they (or their artists) truly notable? Never mind the hordes of fans/creators who want to put up non-notable comics (forty of the past fifty edits on this one section alone, with, what, six or seven reverts?).

Really, any comic that is truly notable is already in the article proper. The rest can stay at List of web comics. Nifboy 2 July 2005 06:23 (UTC)

No, in fact there are many notable web comic artists which are still missing from both the article proper and the list. They have been featured in reviews of Web comics and/or interviewed in Web publications that deal with Web comics. The alphabetical list of authors has a double purpose: Giving alphabetical access, which makes it easy to check who is missing, fast, and what work needs to be done on them (such as googling them to see if they are notable, and preparing individual articles on them and/or their comics)and making a cross referecne to their comics, which may or may not be mentioned with them in the article. --AlainV 4 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)

I think we have widely differing opinions on what counts as "notable," in the context of this page. I see the list as it currently is as, effectively, List of popular webcomics with a few actually notable exceptions (all of whom are in the article proper). Again, List of web comics lists all webcomics (and their artists) that have articles (and are, ergo, notable enough to have an article).
I still maintain, as well, that attempting to maintain such a list (meaning reverting the daily vanity) is not worth the benefit (if any) that the list provides. Nifboy 4 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)
I agree on the part to maintain the list will mean reverting the daily vanity. If we maintain popluar webcomic list, it will get longer and longer and longer. --Kiba 4 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)
The notable artist section should be removed. Many of the artists on the list are not notable, those on the list that actually are notable are already mentioned in the article making the list redudndant, and there are notable artists who are not on the list that I'd add but that would only be contributing to the problem. Any objections to me deleting the list? Dragonfiend 01:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Removed the list. If we dearly need this list (which we don't), I would highly reccomend giving reasons why those artists are notable as opposed to merely asserting that they are. Nifboy 00:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there a possibility of reinstating this list based on the criteria that the artists/webcomic nominated have made a potential impact on a certain industry? For example, Penny Arcade often tackles such topics within the game production/retail/manufacturing industry: The Phantom Console (in conjuction with [H]ardOCP), Sony's handling of the Everquest property and the PR machines that spin the public view of their equipment; Jack Thompson... I'm sure there are others out there. Maybe it shouldn't be called "Notable Artists" but "Impact of Webcomics in Popular Culture".--RWilliamKing 19:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Business

I've attempted to clean up what was formerly the "Industry" section. I changed the section to "Business" since "Industry" has more to do with the manufacturing of goods, where as "Business" seems to more accurately reflect the content of the section (how artists are making money). There are still a few problems with this section that I couldn't think of a good way to fix right away. In the first paragraph there seems to be some confusion between sites that offer hosting to artists for a fee (Keenprime?) and sites that offer subscriptions to readers for a fee (Modern Tales?) but I'm not familiar enough how either site works to clear this up. I also removed a paragraph about webcomics in newspapers because it was very imprecise ("recently ... it is assumed..."), only focused on one comic rather than webcomics as a whole, and contradicted waht was in the PVP article. I think a better paragraph about webcomics that have crossed over to newspapers and vice versa is probably needed. Dragonfiend 19:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Formats" accuracy

Can there be a section which discusses in depth what I think is a major contrast between traditional print comics and webcomics: the somewhat consistant/constant change of art style? There are many MANY webcomics (Penny Arcade being a VERY notable example, look at the very first year versus the current incarnation) which start off with a particular "amateur" style and evolve as the skill of the artist/writer improves, particularly in terms of comedic content and subject matter. Somewhere I think an "evolution" section should be created that shows this. Also, it is very rare that an artist will go back to redraw some of his/her earlier strips. Video Game Cats (VG Cats) is an example where he has gone back to revisit some of his earlier strips to bring them up to date to match his existing style of artwork. I believe he even provides a link to the original strip.

I think there are a significant number of webcomics that do this, enough to point it out as a major difference between print comics and webcomics. The standard of print comics seems to be that the format or art style is always consistent because the particular artist(s) has(have) matured their style(s) already; there is enough consistency that users are not subjected to the "unprofessionalism" (if it may be called that) to the changing/maturing style.

--RWilliamKing 18:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention that sometimes the artists change their format as well, look at the renditions of "Diesel Sweeties" since comic #1 all the way through it's current inception in both print and web form. Layouts have varied, it is no longer the regular 2x2 format that R. Stevens started out as. --RWilliamKing 18:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)



The section about comic layouts looks dubious. It makes the claim that Real Life was the first one to use 2x2, and a simple check of the starting days of it and PvP was enough to call bullshit on that. I have to wonder about the other facts presented. --Kizor 11:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Attributing Real Life as the first 2x2 comic comes from David Anez (author of Bob and George), who said that Real Life was the first and that it inspired him to pick the same format for his hand drawn comic. If you find facts to the contrary, edit rather than delete. Xuanwu 08:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed User:Xuanwu's recent edits that promote his own comic. Please see WP:VANITY. -- Dragonfiend 15:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Please note that I've linked OO before I became involved with it. OO as an example of a comic that still uses 2x2 and does so for the same reasons as MT is true, vanity or not. Please evaluate edits based on their truth rather than simply saying "Vanity!" Had I linked to something like Tsunami Channel (which I was also involved in but does not use 2x2), then your deletion would have been warranted. Xuanwu 01:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted User:Xuanwu's most recent vanity edits to this page. Per WP:VANITY: "Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author ..." User:Xuanwu has inserted references to his own webcomic in the articles on Neon Genesis Evangelion, Webcomic, Webcomic again, WP:WEB, Voltron and probably others. Xuanwu, please stop spamming wikipedia with links to your comic. WP:NOT a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. If you want to give examples of comics that use a certain format, give examples other than your own webcomic. -- Dragonfiend 02:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

On a related subject — do I remember right that Sluggy Freelance generally presents the panels as separate images so that they wrap according to the window size? Does any other webcomic do that? —Tamfang 17:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

ah, here's an example —Tamfang 07:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No, Abrams generally uses a single image for each strip. That's true even when he does long form series like the recently concluded Oceans Unmoving. I'm aware of a few webcomics that do use individual images for panels -- the Gamespy comic Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth comes to mind -- but they're mostly vertical format and page width isn't really an issue. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 03:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differentiate between webcomics and comics?

How is the determination of whether something is a webcomic or not made? If it's around here, I missed it and could use a pointer. I created an article for a comic I read weekly in a popular boston-area print publication Thinkin Ape Blues, but it's been labeled a webcomic. TIA. -Ozzyslovechild 19:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The short answer is there is a large grey area. It really depends on how an individual comic is perceived. Dilbert, for example, has long been available online, but because it's better known in print, it's usually not thought of as a webcomic. Likewise, Penny Arcade appears in print, but it's still considered an iconic webcomic. For this particular comic (the actual location is The Thinking Ape Blues), because of the way it's distributed online, I'd classify it as print rather than web. Though it has strips online, they aren't posted until 2 weeks after they're in print and they're only online for a limited time. If it had a subscription model (à la Modern Tales), where you could pay to see the new and older comics, then maybe I'd consider it a hybrid comic/webcomic, but that doesn't appear to be the case. I'll change the stub from Template:Webcomic-stub to Template:Comics-stub. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 10:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • IMHO, "comic" is a generic term for sequential art. "Webcomic" is a comic that is made and meant to be shown on the internet. "Print comics" are comics that are made and meant to be shown in print. More specifically it's based on the comic creator(s) intent. It's simple enough, if you ask me.
This issue stems from the existing terminology. "Comic books" resemble magazines more than books, and not as many are comedy-focused as when the term was invented. The original comic books were what we now consider reprint collections of newspaper comics; the Garfield collections I loved as a child are like this.
I personally disagree with the term "sequential art", which reminds me of the ill-used term "graphic novel". The terminology is a hodgepodge of history and technology; a more logical description would be "graphic narrative", with individual issues called "graphic narrative magazines". Heck, that's just about the best possible description for something like Knights of the Dinner Table, which is either a magazine with multi-page comic strips, or a comic book with magazine articles. Of course, these conceptual hybrids eventually find their own ground. Is television primarily small-screen movies, or radio with pictures?
One thing I added to this article was the fact that certain "graphic narrative media properties" started as comic books with collection volumes, added a web presence, and dropped production of the individual issues. Both Girl Genius and Finder (comic) made the shift out of financial necessity: once the fans were hooked, they stopped buying the individual issues and started buying the collected volumes. New fans would rather buy trade paperback collections than dig through back issue bins. It made business sense to Phil Foglio and Carla Speed McNeil to give away the comic and sell the print collections.
Anyway, that's my three and a half cents on this part of the topic. --BlueNight 07:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

I don't think a Wikipedia article should be without some sort of criticisms section, although obvious excpetions apply. I particularlly believe that the webcomic section should have one. However, I'm no wikipedian regular, so I don't know how to start it, where to go with it, or how to make it NPOV. Maybe someone else could?

Basically what criticisms I have of webcomics are as follows. While I do conceed that the internet is a great place to get one's own comic out that otherwise would be ignored by big publishers and the syndicates, it does also provide a breeding ground for generic, "cookie cutter" type web comics. For example, visiting www.onlinecomic.net will reveal that the most popular webcomics listed there are all that of "anime/manga" styles. A lot of the more popular webcomics themselves (PvP, Penny Arcade, MacHall, megatokyo) also share distinct similarities, particulally gaming references or use of the aformentioned anime/manga style. Very little variety seem to exist, and from my point of view, it appears as if many web comic creators are more tempted into doing stuff that'll make them popular and less about trying something new or creative. Therefore, it only helps breed more similarity and less originality. Similarlly, as there are a lot of web comics out there, quality of the story and artwork becomes an issue. The idea that "anyone can do a webcomic" serves as both a good and bad thing about webcomics.

I'm sure other criticisms for webcomics out there, but these are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head. Hopefully it's enough to get a criticism section in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.141.183.48 (talk • contribs) .

As long as your criticism section follows the Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No_original_research and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view policies, go for it. However, what you've outlined above seems to your personal criticisms, and that would probably be inappropriate. If you could summarise published common criticisms of webcomics that have appeared in reliable sources, that would be appropriate. For the record, I don't think your opinion that there isn't much variety in webcomics is very accurate. Other than that they are all webcomics, there aren't many similarities between Megatokyo, Narbonic, When I am King, Nowehere Girl, Fetus-X, Get Your War On, and Chasing Rainbows, for example. -- Dragonfiend 00:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, Dragonfiend nailed it. Criticism sections are difficult because people confuse them for free-for-all POV zones. I don't think there's any validity to the claim that webcomics are cookiecutter, either. The medium allows for much more flexibility. Sure, the imitators outnumber the innovators, but that's true for everything. If you have any doubt, take a look at the list of webcomics. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of info on non-notable "recent" site with no reliable sources

Three times in the last three days I have removed the following paragraph from this article: "Recently, a wikisite devoted to drinks based on webcomics, called I'm Just Drinking, has come to the attention of several webcomic authors. Most have been very receptive of the idea, Randy Milholland of Something Positive created a comic commenting on the drink for his comic, and those without a drink, such as Starline Hodge of Candi, have asked fans to create drinks for their webcomics." There are no reliable sources to support the idea that this exceedingly trivial less-than-week-old fan site belongs in this article on the broad topic of webcomics. -- Dragonfiend 02:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting the idea it's not sourced, and it obviously not trivial if someone like R. K. Milholland made a comic commenting about it. It's been placed in the community section and noted that it's new, as it sould be. Nobody else seems to have a problem with it, so unless you have some other reason for why this shouldn't be included, I don't see your arguement. And if you feel it lack sources, add them! Not that hard a thing to do. JQF 02:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say "it's not sourced," I said "There are no reliable sources." See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information on what a relaible source is. For example, "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources." As far as your advice to add reliable sources if I feel thay are lacking, 1) The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain (not the editors removing edits without reliabel sources) and 2) I can't really add reliable sources if none exist. -- Dragonfiend 03:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

This contains mostly unsourced information. I'm particulary worried that it seems full of wikipedia editors' pet theories. Please help make sure information can be verified reliable third-party sources. There should be plenty of these between all the newspaper and magazine articles and books on webcomics. Thsi should be one of our best webcomics article. Dragonfiend 07:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collective?

Has anybody noticed that King Tractor Press, while overseeing several print comics, only publishes one webcomic? I'd hardly call that a Webcomic Collective... but as a lot of thought and discussion has gone into the making of this page, I'm hesitant to just rush in a delete it. Anyway, a heads up. --Antepenultimate 04:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've moved my previous comment down here; I've since learned proper etiquette dictates comments going to the bottom of a talk page. Those above comments still stand, BTW. I recently removed a link to a site named "Rumblo" that was under the Collectives section, as it was a link to a personal site for a single individual who happened to draw multiple comics (a single entity does not a collective make). I left the Paperdemon link; however, I don't know if I should have, this reeks of linkspam. Seemed awfully NN to me. Especially since there's a post above begging for a mention on the page (saying that they are unique for their free webcomic hosting... I can think of two other free hosters right away). And yet, I'm erring on the side of inclusion on this one. We'll see how I feel about it in the morning, though. -- Antepenultimate 03:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam

I removed this recently added passage:

Digital web comics are increasingly also been adapted for viewing via mobile/cell phones mobile comic, supported by the ongoing technological development and sophisitcation (multi-media and big screen) of handsets. One company focused on exploiting this is ComiAsia.com.

This user's contributions have been nothing but adding links to ComiAsia in various ways to various pages. The "mobile comic" article is highly suspect as well. Were this not blatant linkspam, this passage would still merit removal: I'd hardly say that the ability to view a webcomic on a mobile phone is a) unique to webcomics or b) a defining feature of webcomics. -- Antepenultimate 16:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomic recommendation, please

I used to read and collect paper comics like Watchmen, Swamp Thing, Hellblazer, Cerebus and Sandman (Vertigo). I'd quite like to be entertained by a webcomic or two. Can anyone recommend any I may be interested in given my previous favourites? The ones I've looked at so far fall into the "3 or 4 panel gag" format. I'd quite like something that is, yes, funny in parts - but doesn't feel the need to make me laugh all the time, or even primarily.

Is there anything more adult and more like a graphic novel (episodic over a few pages rather than over a few panels? --bodnotbod 03:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomic collectives and companies

I've removed this list as it is too broad for a de facto see also and would better be suited to a category. - brenneman 23:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should follow through and make the category yourself, instead of just making the easy delete and telling us plebes to get to work. Collectives, and to a lesser extent, companies that deal exclusively in webcomics are a very important aspect of the medium - they are the webcomic equivalent of "syndicates" for established newspaper comics. True, it has been a spam magnet since I began monitoring this page, but myself and others have doen a fairly good job (IMO) limiting the list to only those webcomic companies and collectives that apparently warrant their own articles on Wikipedia. So as per where this "too broad" stuff is coming from, I have no idea. I have no interest in edit warring and am letting your edit stand, but for your own future reference: Deleting something and then telling us to "make a category or something" is pretty weak justification. -- Antepenultimate 00:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I to am not interested in edit warring, I'm a 1RR kind of guy... but your edit summary seem to invite me reverting with a more complete rational. If I misread that, I apologise.
  • If material isn't appropiate for inclusion and I remove it suggesting how it might be included is not "telling [you] plebes to get to work."
  • Finally, it's a myth that they are the webcomic equivalent of "syndicates." Print syndication is a very high bar indeed, due to restrictions on space and the pecuniary risks. The same cannot be said for webcomic hosting sites, where the bar for inclusion is much lower.
brenneman 00:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course the bar for such sites as Comic Genesis is extremely low: I guess what I'm getting at is that some collectives (such as Dumbrella and Dayfree Press) are highly regarded - the "high bar" equivalent to comic syndicates that I was alluding to. Of course they don't hold the same power as the print syndicates - but this isn't the Comics article. It is the Webcomics article - and I still believe this is a wholly relevant list for inclusion here. If you felt the list to be too long, perhaps it would have been better for you to edit it down. I for one do not believe that wholesale deletions such as yours (even with "suggestions") do anything to improve Wikipedia - especially when your suggestions are made only in the edit summary. This is what we have Talk Pages for. My flippant edit summary was a knee-jerk response to what I perceived as lazy deletionism, and was likely out of line. Sincerest apologies. And, as a purely personal aside not to be taken too seriously - If the print syndicates' standards are so high, why do I still have to glance over Hi and Lois every day? -- Antepenultimate 01:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
(Belated reply.) If there were a prose section on syndication that cited some sources (other than the aforementioned syndicates, since they'd be primary sources) then there would be better justification for including a short list. - brenneman 01:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concepts

I suggest we take the time to check the use of the words "web comic" and "online comic". I think it's important due to the level of controversy generated by using both of them as synonyms. "Online comic" by itself refers to every comic available online and "Web comic" refers to every comic available in the web. A propper use of both words could lead us to consider every Web comic as an Online comic, but not every Online comic should be considered a Web comic. I haven´t taken any action yet. Because it would be a very significant change, but some actions would include the clean-up of this article, the making of a new article named "Online comic" which wouldn´t redirect to this anymore, and linking both of them leaving "Web comic" as a subcategorie to "Online comic" Arounova 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

  • Do you have sources saying this is an important distinction? -- Dragonfiend 04:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a reasonable claim IMO due to the fact that an "online comic" can refer to the availability of a print comic being published on line, For Better or for Worse (fbofw.com) could be considered an example of this. I think the concept of a "webcomic" usually implies that the internet is in fact the method of distribution as opposed to being published on paper and then made available electronically. Perhaps "Online Comic" could refer to all types of comics that are available on line, but "web comic" referring to comics that are exclusively available on the internet. Though this would create a new category for comics that have bridged the gap, possibly. --RWilliamKing 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia

You know, as of recently, it wouldn't be too absurd to suggest that we make special reference to the fact that many medium-range webcomics are having their pages removed, and that it has become a rather large topic of controversy among the authors and readers of those said comics. I'll reserve my opinions on the matter, but I think the topic is widespread, and noteworthy enough to mention. --8472

Since the focus here is the webcomics' community strongly negative reaction to the matter, a (brief) mention of this "controversy" would be better suited for the Criticism of Wikipedia article - but even there, it would be best to find it mentioned in an independent published source (i.e. not a blog) - something I don't believe has happened. Including it here seems more like sour grapes to me - it wouldn't do much to encourage others to take webcomics more seriously on WP if we continue to get so hung up on these Meta-type issues. It's time to set the wounded pride aside and move on. -- Antepenultimate 16:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is a case of sour grapes at all. There are "notable" webcomics, such as PvP, who are angry about the matter. This is not a case of wounded pride, this is a case of Wikipedia declaring that a medium is unimportant. There are many things that are of arguably lesser relevance or notability that are on Wikipedia: if I can randomly pick the name of an unlicensed, little-known anime or manga and find a Wikipedia entry with detailed synopses of its subplots, I should be able to find a Wikipedia page about an equally obscure webcomic. --Blastron 21:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Why hasn't there been a creation of an authoritative and comprehensive website for ALL webcomics? That way there would always at least be a referencable source for this compendium and would at least contribute to the acceptance of the webcomic media. After all, there's youtube for web video content, photobucket/imageshack for the millions of images. Even though these are collections, they're still reference points and I'm sure if there was something that contained a review, interviews, stats, and an overview of subject matter of webcomics, there might not be such a debate over the whole thing. If wikipedia refuses to accept the concept that wikipedia could be the sole reference for webcomics due to the many critics and artists out there producing the darn things, then there ought to be a reference site for referencing the references. --RWilliamKing 22:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
How about this site: http://www.comixpedia.org/index.php/Main_Page 203.221.18.1 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's what you're asking for RWilliamKing, but www.comixpedia.org is a wiki that has, as far as I can tell, no content policies regarding sourcing or neutral point of view or anything like that. It's generally where we move webcomic articles that don't meet Wikipedia content policies. --Dragonfiend 23:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly, I mean more or less a webcomic review site, not necessarily a wiki. There's a trade publication (I can't remember the name) that's published quarterly or something that goes over toys/comics/movies/shows/dvds etc. I'm thinking of something among those lines, some kind of commercial community site that perhaps in the eyes of WP could be used as a 'primary source' to get rid of these V issues--something that could be construed as an 'online publication'.--RWilliamKing 16:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Do we even know who is heading the deletion campaign, and why? (196.43.65.126 13:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC))
That's something to consider, even though it has traces of being conspiracy-ish, but there is a chance there could be someone spearheading the campaign. --RWilliamKing 20:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no spear-headed webcomics deletion campaign. Hundreds of articles on all sorts of topics are considered for deletion every day-- neologisms, bands, blogs, spam, drinking games, porn stars, webcomics, athletes, etc. If you came here from the blog of a webcomic artist complaining that their article was deleted or considered for deletion, I'd suggest considering the possibility that they might not be accurately presenting the situation. --Dragonfiend 20:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately the view that there is a campaign going on has taken root amongst more than just those artist nominated for deletion. The newbies (including one or two recycles like myself) are just as, or even more likely, to have arrived on the back of coverage elsewhere. I have just been doing a bit of searching around and the is prevalent across a large proportion of the artists, in discussion board's and at review sites.
More established Wikipedians need to note that it isn't the minor stuff that's causing the issues its things like the WCCA, Ugly Hill, Sluggy Freelance, Penny Arcade, Keenspot, GU Comics. an AfD on Keenspot. Its especially bad when you get things like the [an apparent] Darken - Keenspot ricochet where the use of Keenspot to defend Darken [triggered proposals of] an AfD on Keenspot [that was believed by at least one commentator, incorrectly, to have actually occurred.] Whatever the REAL motivation [and the ACTUAL REALITY] that looks like Bad Faith to someone who isn't following the detail of the discussions. Also note that whilst KEEP decisions on AfDs are all very well its the existence of the AfD that makes the negative impression. And that impression is really bad - in my searches I have found practically no support for Wikipedia except for a few reverse imports where Wikipedians have contributed in relevant discussions.
Reporting the loss of the majority of the webcomics community to wikipedia (it is, I fear, alas, as bad as this) in the article would be problematical for one of the reasons that significant webcomics come up for deletion with such ease - the main sources for webcomic reviews and reporting are blogs, or use blogging software, and therefore disallowed as sources by the current rules, or at least the rules as they are currently applied.--BoatThing 00:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (Edited for truth --BoatThing 11:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC))
"the majority of the webcomics community" is a group of people so incredibly large (millions of people?) that I find it hard to believe that they agree on anything, let alone on something like whether the fabled Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Keenspot ever existed. My suggestion would be to just write encyclopedia articles that cite the types of sources that would be of at least appropriate quality for a junior high school research paper, and leave the drama and misinformation on whatever handful of blogs you found it. --Dragonfiend 02:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
(Indented back a bit) My, that touched a raw spot. Nevertheless the impression is there, whether the sources are suitable as a basis for WP content. Truth and what is believed do not necessarily correspond and Wikipedians should be aware of what is being said, and debated in quite some depth. There is, no doubt about it, duff information being cited in some parts of that debate - for example I strongly suspect the Keenspot 'deletion' is a product of comments in a deletion debate about Darken that there _ought_ to be an AfD for Keenspot and/or the misinterpretation of the appearance of a {sources} tag on its article. I'm not sure why that bit of my post wasn't clearer about about what I had concluded and what was believed. Mea culpa, the only excuse I can come up with is the hour.
As to sources, I went looking for what was being said online and undoubtedly the sources that comment on webcomics and WP are almost universally negative about WP. I used the blogs as a source for what was being said on those blogs, and therefore most likely believed by comics readers. And my usage of 'webcomic community' rather than 'webcomic readership' was intended to cover those with a visible online presence and those that read artists news posts and commentators blogs, that is those who are actually involved and knowledgeable (and therefore potential WP contributors) rather than merely reading the comics.
[Off Topic]And its precisely because of the 'sources' issue (and one massive COI) plus the time spent tracking the webcomic and 'web sources' issues (I regard the two as being separate for all that webcomics are affected by the web sources issue) that you haven't seen any article edits from me so far. This is partly because I am having real issues due to the trend of authoritative commentary to move from websites to question and answer sections on message boards and/or for previously unavailable but evidently authoritative information to become available on those mediums. BTW, NONE of these edits would be in the webcomics area.[/Off Topic] Sorry for the length.--BoatThing 11:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Antepenultimate, in my opinion this is not a good topic for the webcomics article itself. For us who are interested in webcomics it may seem that webcomics are being singled out by wikipedia's notability guidelines, but I'm sure there are other niche areas that feels the same. Epameinondas 15:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
So is the backlash against WP merely a bi-product of an angry webcomic artist venting on his frontpage? Given the nature of the internet this isn't too hard to believe. However a small part of me has trouble totally discounting it all when 6 webcomics I read all had their wiki page deleted or tagged. Is it all coincidence? I'm not arguing a point really, just confused.164.116.70.233 16:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that a number of people are confusing what I've said to be a slight against Wikipedia. What I meant that this is currently an issue. If you can tell by this page, there are a lot of opinions, feelings, and, I repeat, controversy. People are coming up with conspiracy theories about the matter, and people are questioning corruption, or snobbery, or what have you. What I am saying is that this is a notable aspect of the webcomic medium at large- Everyone in the webcomic community is talking about it, from authors, to readers, to the people who keep watch of the webcomic discussion in Wikipedia. What I'm saying is that when someone searches Wikipedia, and looks for this alien concept of "Webcomics" that they heard in a dream, it would be accurate to display this, in a totally neutral, totally informative way. --8472
With further review, I think that the "sour grapes" claim is as realistic as applying the same label to Iraqi rebels in response to the U.S. invasion. Over the next few days, I'm going to start researching about said independent published sources, and place the topic within the article. --8472
Wow, comparing the deletion of a few Wikipedia articles to the aftermath of a full-scale invasion of a foreign nation... that's certainly an interesting way of looking at things. But by all means, if you can find a truely independent published source that is actually concerning itself with this, then go for it. I still hold that this has more to do with Criticism of Wikipedia than Webcomics specifically. Think about it - I'd say it's a fair lowball estimate that about 10 - 15 articles about small punk rock bands get deleted every day, either through the Speedy process (mostly) or the AfDs. But nobody's going to include an entry about said deletions in the main punk rock article - because it really isn't relevant to punk rock (and those who identify with the punk scene probably don't attach a lot of importance to being "validated" by Wikipedia anyhow). It is arguably relevant to Wikipedia (though let's not get carried away - people's point of view (either as fans or creators) is truely magnifying these "controversies" way out of proportion). Were webcomics articles unduly targeted for deletion? Maybe. Is it really that big of a deal? Not really, unless you're someone like Paul Southworth or Gary Tyrrell, apparently. The way they go on and on, you'd think every article about every webcomic was purged in this last go-round - and we all know that's not true. There are still plenty of webcomic articles on WP - let's not lose all sense of perspective. -- Antepenultimate 21:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even trying to go that far, and I don't thing that the topic really is so much as a criticism of Wikipedia, as it is a flavor of the webcomics community. I mean, if you spend even a negligible amount of time going through webcomics, you would find at least one "recent" example of the concern within the community. As for the small punk rock bands, it would be like if there were a litany of songs displaying their anger of the deletion of their pages. What I'm saying that it becomes a separate, cultural belief, and while my example seems brash, you have to realize that the connection is not necessarily the intensity of opposition, but the communal integrating- the flag-bearing togetherness caused by the event. Suddenly, instead of a bunch of guys and girls, they're unified because Wikipedia is supposedly attacking them. If this isn't noteworthy, I don't know what is.-- 8472
I guess the connection I was trying to make to the Criticism of Wikipedia article is that we have several vocal webcomic advocates/creators, well... criticising Wikipedia. But your argument's fair enough. However, I take serious issues with your elevating this issue to a "cultural belief", inspiring "flag-bearing togetherness", or that the community has been "unified" over this... seriously. I spend more than a negligable amount of time going through webcomics, and of my 30+ that I check regularly, nobody's even mentioned it (and there are a lot of big names on the list)... In fact, during this same period of time, John Allison featured a link to his WP page, with a blurb about the amount of hard work by many individuals that it represents. Dinosaur Comics, which features more WP references than any other comic I know of, hasn't even said one word about this "controversy." I probably would have never known about it if I didn't look in on Fleen once in a while, and from there I was able to look over Paul Southworth's childish take on the whole thing, and I've also seen that PvP has done some sort of discussion on the matter. Oh yeah, and that rant at this year's WCCA "ceremony." Total time of the flare-up was about two weeks - with much of this "unified" action taking place in the form of poorly worded rants in various discussion forums. Now maybe I'm just not reading the right comics (I avoid gamer comics/sprite comics/anime knock-offs like the plague), but this seems to fall well short of a call for revolution. -- Antepenultimate 20:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right that I have exaggerated that unification a bit much, notably the extent of which has already been mobilized. I guess that I have, myself, deviated from my original point. I do see what you're saying about the criticism of webcomic artists/writers/readers being connected to Criticism of Wikipedia, although the criticism itself is not a new argument. Either way, the topic cannot be pursued until I have access to the independent published source, and as you predicted, I haven't found a (very) applicable source. Anyways, it's been fun. --8472
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/e/b/Talk%7EWebcomic_c118.html"