Talk:Webcomic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Webcomic article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
Archive 1: Apr 2005 - May 2007


Contents

[edit] Criticisms

Sources (of criticism): [1] and [2] VTNC 05:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History Revisit

From attempting to read the History section, it has been apparently clear that it has become increasingly garbled. It is difficult to understand, with several months being mentioned in the same year (August of 2000 is listed twice). Some of the events as well are irrelevant to the history of webcomics, and need to be removed. Also, some of these dates should be simply merged. One does not simply need to list all 12 months of a year and define what happened in this months. It is much cleaner to simply state "in 2000...." and reference RELEVANT information on the history or webcomics. Konraden88 09:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC) (I keep forgetting to sign these darn things.)

Leaving appart the relevance issue of those dates, it apparently would do better if all of those facts were listed in a chronological table by year and by month. Though It'd be the best if the section received a more descriptive treatment than the current Date-event one. In fact I've seen an evolution in webcomics, which have been through some stages or "Ages", a "prehistoric" stage between 1985-1993, a formative one through 1993-1999, a "golden age" (1999-2001), an expansion stage (2001-2004) and a decay stage (2005 onwards). The former being a propposal I came with last year based on factors like the rise and fall of communities, artwork quality, spread of internet and number of webcomics. But I can´t post it in the main article (or any) because it is original research. Arounova 01:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI: PC Mag's top ten Webcomics

I know some of you have requested recommendations as to new comics to check out. You might be interested in a PCMag article describing their top ten web comics. "PC Mag Names Its 10 Most Awesome Webcomics: The Net is crawling with comics; some of them are worth reading and rereading, while others are not. To give you a head start at sniffing out the crème de la crème of the webcomic world, PC Magazine has picked its 10 favorite "wicked awesome" strips." -PCMag.com http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2139707,00.asp P.S. If anyone knows how to create an "External Links" tab in the article and thinks this would be helpful, by all means. -- DHaber 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting but it's too subjective to be considered encyclopedic information. --dmkrantz 22:35, 7 Feb 2008 (CST)

[edit] Image

Why are there no images for this page, given the very visual nature of it's subject? At the very least there could be an xkcd or similarly licensed strip as an illustration, if the rights issues are too complicated for other comics. --Starwed 03:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to irrelevant Wikinews article

I would like to remove the link to wikinews:Wikimedia fundraiser highlights webcomic community's frustration with Wikipedia guidelines from the top of this article. Per Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Wikinews and WP:CONTEXT, Wikinews should only be linked when we are discussing the event that Wikinews also discusses. We should not be linking to every single news article tangentially related to webcomics. This article does not discuss the Wikimedia fundraiser issue at all, so we should not be including the link to a news article that discusses that issue, and especially not at the very top of the article. The fact that the news article is from Wikinews is irrelevant; we are here to make an encyclopedia, not to promote Wikinews. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion: Hey. I just saw this page listed on WP:3O, and I was wondering why it was listed there. There hasn't been any conversation or any debate. It seems like David Shankbone reverted your edits. Perhaps you should make a post on his talk page and discuss the issue with him directly. Neither of the articles you linked to actually mention Wikinews protocols. I'll admit that the link at the top is a little strange, but I don't really know enough of the rules on Wikinews links. Anyway, I would say engage him directly and let him know that you want to discuss the issue on here. If there is a discussion and you want a third opinion, leave another note on the 3O page and we'll help. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We have an article on a sister project, Wikinews, where the Talk page to the article elicited significant discussion from the Webcomic community [3], that discusses the Webcomic community's frustration with the deletion of a broad spectrum of Webcomic articles off of Wikipedia. Then you have the Webcomic page on Wikipedia, a sister project of Wikinews. There is no irrelevancy at all to those two things. What is irrelevant is your argument "We should not be linking to every single news article tangentially related to Webcomics." One, we aren't doing that, we are linking to one. Two, it's hard to see a news item about Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion of Webcomics is not related to the Wikipedia article about Webcomics. This is neither promotion, nor irrelevance, and I find your arguments nonsensical. --David Shankbone 18:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid self-references is another guideline worth reading. Anyway, this article is about webcomics themselves, not webcomics in relation to Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. That issue is not so much as mentioned in this article. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Gah. Pet peeve of mine. Avoiding self-reference is a style guideline, not a linkage or inclusion guideline. That's why we can have articles like Jimbo Wales and Wikipedia. ASR is for things like "A webpage, such as this one" or a "A wiki, like the one you are reading now". Read the guideline. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem was mainly that the link was given such prominence in the article, being one of the first things that readers see. Just because a Wikinews article talks about Wikipedia doesn't mean that it should get that kind of prominence on Wikipedia. To me, giving it that kind of prominence violates a good deal of policies. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
That's possible, but ARS isn't one of them. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
We aren't self-referencing Wikipedia, we are referencing the work of another project. That's not an argument for removing a news link that discusses the concerns of the community about which this article is written. That is very relevant. Additionally, the article discusses such issues as self-publication and notability. It's hard to see your point here. --David Shankbone 18:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but this article does not discuss the Wikimedia issue at all. This might be because that issue is not notable. Why are we including a link to a Wikinews article that discusses a non-notable topic? —Remember the dot (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me understand this: you don't want the article in period, so you are arguing that because that some in the Wikimedia foundation approached Webcomics about fundraising, and they found dissatisfaction in that community, and an article was written about that dissatisfaction and was mentioned in the title, that it shouldn't be included? The article isn't about the Wikimedia fundraiser, and if it was, that would make it less relevant to the article. The article is about efforts to fundraise being met with dissatisfaction with Wikipedia by Webcomics, which makes it relevant to...the Wikipedia article about Webcomics. Again, I find your arguments not making a whole lot of sense. Especially your last line of "unnotable topic" - if Webcomics are unnotable, should we delete this article? --David Shankbone 19:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
No, that is not my position. I have no opinion on whether or not the webcomic community has been wronged. I object to the inclusion of non-notable material in Wikipedia. Webcomics are notable. Webcomics and Wikimedia is not. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to mention something in the middle here, generally (as in what i do, and what some other wikinewsies do, but not all people do, and I don't know what official policy is/it doesn't exist) links to wikinews are at the top of the page, if they are extremely related to topic (aka an article on wikipedia about an incident, and a wikinews article about incident). If a section of article is on the same topic as the wikinews article then we usually put the link in that section. If say the article is about a person, and the wikinews article is about something that happened to that person (but the wikipedia article is really only about that person, not the event), then the link is generally the see also section. Links with {{wikinewscat}} and {{wikinewsportal}} are also in see also. However that is just the very general how its practiced currently. There are no set rules (I'm aware of). Bawolff (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Ok, here's my third opinion as per the guidelines for the Third opinion project: The link is pertinent and should stay. Comment: If the editor who believes it should not stay wishes to seek additional input, I suggest the Requests for comment process. — Athaenara ✉ 02:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I took a quick look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Wikinews to see how it was used elsewhere, and only see it either in a relevant section (Hunter S. Thompson#Death) or at the bottom in the see-also section (Animation#See also). Since I doubt the event is hardly a major-enough event in the history of webcomics to warrant its own section, I recommend the latter option. Nifboy (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I never had a problem with moving the link - but User:Remember the dot was simply deleting it, not moving it. It's not even a story I wrote on Wikinews, but it sure did garner a lot of reaction from Webcomics, and is the most read story on Wikinews. It was blogged about and reported upon. --David Shankbone 13:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
If you're OK with moving it to the "See also" section, then that would be fine. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That's fine with me. --David Shankbone 20:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boycott of Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Moved to tyalk page until it becomes a more ntoable boycott (i.e. I'm boycotting the boycott) RJFJR (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Howard Tayler has begun a boycott of Wikipedia during the current fundraiser. People participating in the boycott are objecting to the exclusion of webcomics from Wikipedia on the grounds that they are not notable enough.

I think that this text should be moved back to the main article...right now it is a notable boycott because it is a currently active boycott by webcomics against wikipedia...where else better to mention it than in the Wikipedia article on Webcomics?
Maybe it should be moved to the talk page after the boycott ends...since then people will probably forget about it and it won't be notable...but the boycott is:
  1. Relevant to the article
  2. Information that someone is likely to be looking for
  3. Not original research
  4. Described from a neutral point of view
Personally I think that the reason all news of this boycott is being removed from wikipedia has nothing to do with whether the people censoring it out really think that it should not be part of an encyclopedia, I think the people censoring this out of wikipedia simply don't like the idea of a boycott of wikipedia, and probably don't like webcomics either.
Just because all you couch potatoes who's whole world revolves around TV haven't heard of any of these Webcomics does not mean they are not quite famous...it just means that they are not on TV...which is why they are called webcomics. It makes sense that wikipedia has articles about TV shows etc. but in general Wikipedia is not a place to just copy in the things you've heard about on TV, and delete the things you haven't heard about on TV...just because the media does not validate something, does not mean that it is not a part of millions of peoples lives. Wikipedia should be a place to find information that may be hard to find elsewhere...that's the point of having such a immense encyclopedia. The fact that the media ignores something that is somewhat notable should encourage the Wikipedia community to include it.
If we are going to start excluding huge groups of well-known people from wikipedia for not being "notable enough," I propose we start with the country music singers!
BTW: Thank-you RJFJR for moving this to the talk page instead of just deleting it without any discussion or consensus! I love webcomics 17:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boycotting the boycott

RJFJR:

When you say you are "boycotting the boycott" I assume you are hinting at the fact that the reason you removed the boycott from the article was not because you did not think it was applicable to the subject of the article, and not because it was original research or anything like that. I assume what you are saying is that you don't like the boycott, so you are just going to delete it because you are worried that someone who hasn't heard of it will see it, and they will like the idea of the boycott and join it.

Your own wording has contradicted your stance that the only reason you were removing it from the talk page was because it was not notable. I love webcomics 17:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

boycotting the boycott was intended as a pun, a humorous and witty way of saying I was removing the section about the boycott (to talk). I removed the boycott material because it did not sound like it involved a significant number of participants. (This may indicate that the extent of the boycott needs to be documented in the entry before it is added back to the article.) I'm not sure webcomics is the best place to put this material. Does it belong in the article about wikipedia since that is what is being boycotted or does it belong at the person who initiated the boycott? I see nothing at the article on the person who started the boycott but I just skimmed it when looking for it. RJFJR 17:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you really were boycotting the boycott. And although I do get your joke...the word boycott does not have that many meanings...I think you need to look up the word pun. The reason that his name is not mentioned in the article, is because he is a webcomic. That's what the whole protest is about! The protest is about boycotting Wikipedia because of their exlusion of webcomics, and you are saying the boycott is not relevant because Wikipedia does not mention these webcomics!
You may not be making any puns, but you're being a lot funnier than you realize!
By the way...I wanted to put it in the Wikipedia article, but I am a new user and that page is locked for obvious reasons. I love webcomics 18:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
How many people are boycotting? If just Howard Tayler, who started the boycott, is boycotting then that doesn't sound significant. (Note, we do have an article on Howard Tayler.) If there are a lot of people boycotting and they are getting a lot of publicity then it could be significant. (Which raises the question of how we measure the size of the boycott and how do we document the measurements.) RJFJR 16:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should "Webtoon" redirect here?

Doesn't "toon" usually refer to animation? I was expecting when I typed "webtoon" into the search, to find an article related to animation created to showcase on the internet, perhaps Flash animation. Indeed, that article defines the term "webtoon" as animation. B7T (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a separate entry in at Webtoon now. I've added it to "See also" on the Webcomic page. The Webtoon page will need some serious cites if it is to survive, however. -- Yamara 23:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We should remove the referential links.

I believe this entire article is bogged down with name dropping and image samples that are less than representative of the medium as a whole. I think that the article (especially the 'medium' and 'business' sections) should concern themselves with actual explanations and remove *ALL* their specific comic references. Rather than listing certain comics and then providing a comprehensive list under a "many others" link it should simply explain things here and list them there. Otherwise this article is a prime place for people to edit the comic references according to their personal tastes. I honestly feel like doing it myself. <_<;; --dmkrantz 23:12, 7 February 2008 (CST)

[edit] Why is American Born Chinese referenced here?

It's not a webcomic as far as I know. Did I miss something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.216.236 (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Need to define Print versus Webcomic

thesaj

We have articles on "Web Pages in Print". We also have traditionally print comics that are making strong waves online (ie: Dilbert).

We are headed toward more and more convergence. What if a traditionally web-based comic starts appearing in national syndication. Let's say Penny Arcade finds itself in newspapers across the country several years from now. Do we continue listing it as a web comic? Do we base it on circulation numbers (whichever is higher print or web)? What if a print comic moves to be a predominantly web based comic with higher web circulation?

Or is it all about the birth of the comic? While very few print comics were birthed online, that was mainly because the internet did not exist at their births. I'd wager most new print comics by new comic artists spent some time online somewhere.

If we do not establish guidelines for these situations and merely act on them subjectively we will find the webcomic page mired in further controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSaj (talk • contribs) 17:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not see what the controversy would be. There are several comics that have been published in print form and, as far as I know, there have been no problems with them. Take PvP, for instance. This is a webcomic that has a monthly syndication, but no one is trying to argue that it is not a webcomic. I think it will be obvious when a webcomic is a webcomic and when it is not. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • We don't establish guidelines on what is or isn't a webcomic; if a reliable source calls it a webomic, then we can document that. This article already discusses several webcomics that are also print comics: "Some successful webcomics have subsequently been reprinted in book compilations, often self-published. Examples of webcomics in print include PvP, Penny Arcade, Sluggy Freelance, and Megatokyo, as well as many others. Some webcomics, such as Helen, Sweetheart of the Internet, Van Von Hunter and Diesel Sweeties have been syndicated and published on daily newspapers' comics pages. Others such as The Perry Bible Fellowship and PartiallyClips have been published in smaller alternative newspapers, or printed in magazines, such as The Order of the Stick in Dragon Magazine and Get Your War On in Rolling Stone." --Dragonfiend (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)