Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Webcomics/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

"10 Tips for Successful Webcomicking"

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

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

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

CSD now properly applies to nn-webcomics

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

Project Directory

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

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

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

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

Is there a consensus on running gags sections?

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

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

What makes a webcomic artist?

From the Nowhere Girl article:

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

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

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

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

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

Twokinds

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

Reman Mythology on DRV

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

The Cyantian Chronicles wiki page is up

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

Is this project supported at all?

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

Taskforce

Would it be better to have this as a taskforce of WikiProject Comics, rather than a separate Project? Have a look at WP:MILHIST for how they have their taskforces set up to see what I mean. Hiding Talk 15:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

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

JCM 06:20, October 31 2006

• I came here to make this suggestion and was happy to see I'm not the only one who thought of. Denying users useful information on webcomics, that for instance don't meet Wiki notability standards, when a quality Comixpedia article exists on the comic seems a bit ridiculous. I feel it would be a good step forward for the project to allow for redirects to Comixpedia on webcomic articles not deemed notable enough (or any other valid deletion reason), assuming a good Comixpedia article exists of course. I think it would also help prevent a LOT of the huge deletion debates, save a lot of time, and help promote the Comixpedia. This is a win-win idea for everybody. --Nmaster64 05:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I second that. I didn't even know Comixpedia existed, so referring to that site seems to be a sensible move. It maintains the overall mission of preserving knowledge for future generations and is also inclusionist enough to cover comics that haven't achieved other notability requirements.

AfD: Misfile

Why is [Misfile] up for deletion - it is a fairly popular webcomic, and the article is listed as "OK"? I think the notability criteria for webcomics should perhaps be reassessed? Lbarbs 03:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Blame John Seigenthaler, Sr., who made Wikipedia get its act together and demand reliable third-party sources of its articles. No reliable sources seem to exist on said comic, and therefore it is up for deletion. Nifboy 03:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I'm seeing many of my favorite webcomics getting their articles deleted all the time from Wikipedia. Is it possible to make a movement against the Wikipedian policy to modify what qualifies as "significant" under WEB? H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 17:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have some compelling argument that makes editors change their minds, don't expect to make much progress. Nifboy 20:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, and I think the rules as they are make sense. I mean, there are litterally hundreds of web comics now (that's just English alone), and the majority of them come and go quickly all things considered. There are already several large Web Comic indexes out there such as Comixpedia and The Web Comic List to name just two. From an encyclopedic standpoint you would only want to list webcomics that support the bigger story about the subject of webcomics and what they are in general, and a part of that is both notarety and historical significance.BcRIPster 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a separate set of inclusion guidelines for webcomics for a while, which was more permissive than WP:WEB. However, Eric Burns tried to fix it, and while well-intentioned, his proposal was more complicated, and it started a flood of attempts to fiddle with it. Eventually it collapsed under its own weight—notability guidelines are only effective so far as other voters on AfD accept their premises as reasonable, and it had obviously become so permissive that barely any webcomic could be said to fail it: more excuse than argument. — Gwalla | Talk 07:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You think if we nominate Ctrl+Alt+Del for deletion under WEB that we could prove a point that the policy needs changed? H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 10:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

They'll ignore you. WP:POINT. Nifboy 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

For contrast, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slashdot. More than a month later, Slashdot remains undeleted and is still tagged with {{Primarysources}}. Bo Lindbergh 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Don't be a jerk. It just wastes everybody's time and spreads bad feeling. — Gwalla | Talk 00:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with H2P that some sort of change needs to be made. The current standards really make it impossible for most noteworthy webcomics out there to have articles, simply because print publications tend to not take interest in webcomics. It is a separate industry, and to require a published source to cover a webcomic before it can have an article is like saying a politician cannot have an article until a well-known band writes a song about them. A more relevant requirement would be to require that such web-based industries be independently covered by multiple significant industry blogs, or something of the sort. I understand that this would require a LOT of debate about what level of standards to use in considering what makes the blogs significant enough to count, but I think it would be in the best interest of the project. Right now there are plenty of articles being deleted whose subjects are MUCH more notable and widely read than existing articles that fulfill WEB, all because the rules are so irrelevant when dealing with an industry such as webcomics. In any case, whether or not anyone likes my suggestion, I'm sure many would agree with my statement that the current standards of WEB apply very poorly to the webcomic industry. Zaron 02:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, I do. The current rules are severely inapplicable to webcomics. Unfortunately I cannot spare the days it would take to get acquainted with the policy in order to take the matter up, not to mention anything relating to WP:V or WP:RS. The deleters are very well entrenched and only too happy to make Wikipedia's coverage of webcomics collateral damage of the content policies. It is being systematically destroyed. --Kizor 03:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I also don't have the time (or sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia proceedings) to do such a thing. However I think if we can get enough people to agree that an adjustment of policy needs to be made, we can get some progress going. Does anyone a bit more experienced in these sort of procedures want to lend a hand in actually getting this project some notability requirements that are relevant to this industry? -- Zaron 00:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that something has to be done about the policy about Webcomics. When I tried to make The Cyantian Chronicles, a webcomic I like, it was deleted before I knew it (Some time passed, but I wasn't aware of its deletion). I think webcomics should be able to be on Wikipedia if a certain amount of criteria is met, such as if it's been active for a year or more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madd the sane (talk • contribs) 03:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not going to change its fundamental requirements that information be verifiable and written from a neutral point of view. If it were to cahnge these concepts, it would be nearly completely useless as an encyclopedia. What seems to be described here is something more along the lines of comixpedia.org where webcomics fans are free to write anything regardless of sourcing, point of view, etc. -- Dragonfiend 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I know that your interpretations of policy are far stricter than average, but please explain or retract the insult that we would wish to write POV material. --Kizor 13:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What Kizor said. Nobody said anything about changing the requirement for NPOV sources. We just think that the requirement for sources should be more applicable to the industry. - Zaron 12:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My intention is not to insult anyone, only to remind that without multiple non-trivial reputable sources, we really can't write from a neutral point of view. WP:NOT requires that "articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." Without good sources, we can't write about something's historical significance without delving into personal point of view. WP:NPOV holds that "we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that 'human knowledge' includes all different significant theories on all different topics." Significant theories (such as whether a website is of historical significance) must be based on reputable sources. "Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia." These are some of the foundations that our inclusion policies for all content, including webcomics, are based on. The start of this conversation ("I'm seeing many of my favorite webcomics getting their articles deleted") is really the cruz of the issue -- whether Wikipedia is the place where we write about our favorite things, or whether Wikipedia is the place where we write baed on reputable sources. If there are no reputable sources for our favorite things, yes, we will see articles on them deleted. Also, Kizor, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that my "interpretations of policy are far stricter than average." Looking at things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elftor (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Her! Girl vs Pig, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lounge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acid Reflux (webcomic), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien Dice, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hackles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedity, etc., it seems like you want to keep quite a few articles that the community ends up deleting. This to me suggests that possibly it is your "interpretations of policy" which deviates from the average. -- Dragonfiend 14:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Leaving the rest until after I've rested: One, several of those are immediately after a long absence from webcomic deletions, at which time I was far more out of things than I am now. A couple are fighting windmills, but that isn't really conveyed. Two, you need not suggest anything. I AM laxer than average. This need not and does not mean that you can't swing the other way. I got the idea from such things as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okashina Okashi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checkerboard Nightmare, etc., comments to you along the lines of, quote, "I will point out once again that the standard you are applying is not the standard intended or endorsed by any of our content policies.", your elaborate messages in which you apply the full force of every policy you can and your perpetual efforts to destroy the site's main advantage in the likely futile pursuit of academic respectability. As a side note, are you feeling okay? Your typing is usually impeccable. --Kizor 15:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I give up. This can't be won apparently. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 15:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dragonfiend, don't take this the wrong way, but I think you should be slightly less concerned about whether or not the subjects of articles are something the author likes. Of course people are going to pay special attention to articles on things they like. I expect that Star Wars articles are mostly edited by Star Wars fans, so it shouldn't be a problem if the author of a webcomic article is a fan of that webcomic. Now, I'm not in any way saying that a NPOV isn't important, but I think fans of comics are fully capable of writing good articles with a NPOV.

As for your mention of reputable sources, I fully agree that all articles need to be able to cite coverage of reputable third party coverage. However, the current requirements of WEB really don't allow for any kind of coverage that a webcomic is likely to ever receive. The WCCA awards are pretty much the biggest awards webcomics can hope to get as long as they remain only on the internet, and it is disputed as to whether or not those are notable enough to count, which makes the second criteria of WEB pretty unrealistic for webcomics. Also, since most artists look to make money from ad revenue on their website, being distributed by an independent medium is not even something many webcomic artists would want, let alone strive to achieve. The only glimmer of hope webcomics seem to have is the first criteria. The key word in that criteria is that the sources must be "published" and it is debatable what falls under that category. According to the publishing article, "the scope of publishing has expanded to include electronic resources, such as the electronic versions of books and periodicals, as well as websites, blogs, and the like." Now, generally I've seen blogs looked down upon in AfDs. In the recent AfD of the article for Fanboys, articles from major blogs Joystiq and Destructoid were looked down upon, because the sources were "just blogs." However, since Wikipedia obviously considers at least some blogs to be published works, I'd imagine that we need a better definition of what blogs count as published works, and what does not. Obviously we can't count every blog, but there has to be a way to separate significant blogs from trivial ones. What I guess I'm getting at is that Wikipedia's WEB policy has a big fat grey area, one which needs to be defined before the constant creation and deleting of articles comes to an end. Zaron 22:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone please explain the logic behind the deletion of the Web Cartoonists Choice Awards article? In what way are they non-notable? I do agree the article needed work (from what I remember of it), but is that a valid justuification? I have read the VFD page 3 times and still can't understand the decision. Does anyone plan to challenge this? Aclapton 23:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

At this point, challenging the deletion of almost anything webcomics-related is futile. As I've been saying in the above discussion, the current standards are completely irrelevant to the industry, and things like the WCCAs are likely to be deleted until we get more applicable requirements for notability. - Zaron 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the WCCA actually got an entire episode of Attack of the Show and (at least in my eyes) non-trivial mention in the NYT. Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards and you'll see that the current standards actually were fulfilled ("The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."). When I poked the closing Admin about it, he bluntly suggested taking it to DRV, but I think I would get torn to shreds there (with less than hundreds of Mainspace edits, my opinion in official debates counts about as much as the opinion of Daffy Duck on quantum physics). Still, I'm feeling extremely tempted because I simply don't get the argument.

Other than that, I fully agree with most people here. The notability guidelines are pretty much engineered against web-based content. By their own guidelines, the article about Wikipedia would have only been allowed after the second (inter-)national newspaper article specifically about Wikipedia. I figure that in a few years, only PvP, MegaTokyo and other ultra-successful comics will have entries. At the same time, every single Pokemon in existence has its own entry, and I can still look up details about a specific unit in X-Com. Hooray for balance. --Sid 3050 18:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out - to bring this point over from Talk:Evil Inc.#Re-created that there appears to have developed a "policy in practice" of putting up webcomic articles for deletion on the basis attempting to verify the notability and failing, but by the failure of the article itself to establish beyond all doubt that the webcomic is notable. Given that most articles do not, in fact, establish notability, the practice of putting webcomics-related articles up for deletion without at least attempting to verify notability needs to come to an end.

The webcomic community appears to have previously had a bit of a persecution complex with regard to Wikipedia, but it appears as though some editors are working overtime to justify this perception. I am amazed to see the number of webcomic articles deleted recently, and absolutely shocked when I see how many AFDs that would, on any other topic, be marked no consensus, be concluded delete for a webcomic-related AFD. Balancer 01:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Award sites

where does the wiki community stand on sites awarded/nominated by major award sites like the WCCA (which ironically had it's article deleted and protected, even though it has been mentioned that winning an award there counted as "notability") and the Joe Shuster awards. The Joe Shuster Awards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuster_Awards) is a fairly big-name (Joe Shuster, creator of superman, etc etc) awards site, which has recently expanded to a Canadian Webcomics category. Would a webcomic being nominated and listed on the Shuster Awards website be considered "Notable" enough to warrant a Wikipedia article? Please leave a note as to the answer of this in my personal talk.Cthon98 February 8, 2007

For additional irony, consider that the WCCA had actually been listed as one of the example awards on the Web Notability page until the second half of 2006 or so. The AfD of it is also worth a read and should show why people still use it to prove notability despite the deletion.

Normally an award is classified as notable when it has been covered by others (See WP:N for the exact rules). There have been rulings that go against this rule of thumb, but that's at least the official word from what I can see. Keep in mind that I'm no Wiki Pro, so I may be wrong or maybe forgot something. --Sid 3050 12:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If being nominated for or winning any award results in being the topic of multiple non-trivial reputable sources, than winning the award meets Wikipedia:Notability. -- Dragonfiend 19:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Old Webcomics

I stumbled over this project and noitced that "ImaNewbie" isn't on the list. It's closed down since long, but was something every UO player used to know about. Unfortunatley, I don't have the link to the site anymore, and I'm not even sure if it is still up, although I know it was not too long ago. There was several hundred episodes, iirc, and it had a continuing story that ended in a "circle" with the last episode linking directly to the first one again. Not sure if it's notable enough, but thought I should raide the question. JKn-Sw 06:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Blank Label

I think that a short summary-style section should be included on each comic in the Blank Label Comics article - i've created section stubs for this purpose. --Random832(tc) 14:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Joining

is there any process to officially join the wikiproject? (btw, im in ur talkpage, archiving ur threadz - hope nobody minds that, it was getting a bit unwieldy.) --Random832(tc) 21:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just go to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Webcomics#Participants and click the "To add yourself click here!" link at the bottom of the list. Thanks for the archiving. -- Dragonfiend 21:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for help

Secret of Mana Theater would like to join wiki project webcomics, we're currently in dire need for help as well as while the comic has a large following there are not many wikipedians in the active community surrounding it. The article is currently nominated for deletion a second time due to our struggles and we would love to enlist any help we can get. We do feel it suits the notability requirements as in part discussed on its deletion discussion page(2). However we'd need help getting that noted and help getting the aricle past stub class. See: Secret of Mana Theater --69.180.162.212 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted content

Briefly - in the event that an article gets deleted that does not exist on comixpedia, just drop a not on my talk page and I'll make the material available. "Content review" at deletion review would do the same thing, and there exists a category of admins who are also willing.
brenneman^{T}{L} 00: 38, 27 February 20 06 (UTC)

• I'll do the same thing. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 05: 13, 27 February 20 06 (UTC)

I can't help but think that articles ought to be replaced by links to their counterparts on comixpedia, instead of just being deleted (and leaving behind all those abominable broken links). SamB 03:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is currently against Wikipedia policy to make Wikipedia:soft redirects to non-Wikimedia sites. — Gwalla | Talk 06:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Webcomic notability guidelines

The notability of webcomics has often been a heated debate. However, rather then just go around and try and get every webcomic article up for deletion, I propose some general guidelines for which webcomics make notable articles.

I've set out a basic outline for these guidelines, yet please feel free to share your feelings, and add changes to the guidelines, to put together some good guidelines. If you have any more examples you feel are good to add, please add extra exmaples in it's category.

Webcomic notability guidelines. Posted to front page on 20:31, 4 February 2007 by User:JackSparrow Ninja)

• WP:WEB was created from the webcomic guidelines. Hiding Talk 09:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And WP:WEB does not work for webcomics. I'll give an example of how two things made from the same thing can be different: you have a nail; after setting it up to pound in, you look for your hammer. You can't find it anywhere, but wait, there's a screwdriver! So, you pick it up and decide to use that: they were both created from steel, right? (Justyn 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC))
    • So work on fixing it. These policies don't get handed down from on high, after all. They are the work of mortals. — Gwalla | Talk 03:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • • The fact remains that WP:WEB would need to be overhauled to make in more accepting to webcomics; something that the supporters of it say should not happen. It's simply easyer to make guidelines for a subject alone rather then use those of a more general subject. Take WP:PORNBIO, it is a clarifiation of WP:BIO for specificaly for determining the notibility pornographic actors and actresses. A set of guidelines specificaly for determining the notibility of webcomics would simply be a clarification of WP:WEB for webcomics, in the same way that PORNBIO is for BIO. (Justyn 07:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

• • • • • WP:WEB works for webcomics, IMO. The standards of WP:WEB have been widely ignored in deleting webcomics; that WP:WEB is being ignored, not that WP:WEB is webcomic-unfriendly, is the problem. Balancer 16:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Anti-Webcomic Stigma

Not sure if everyone at this WikiProject got notice of this yet or not, but anyone who considers themselves quite involved will want to take a look:

http://www.halfpixel.com/2007/02/15/delete-wikipedia/

If that does not convince you that Wikipedia is basically out to get rid of webcomic articles, then you are quite frankly blind. Something needs to be done about this, or it won't just be the webcomic community that loses all respect for Wikipedia.Adolytsi 04:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that about the failed prank. What is it supposed to show? That wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone edit? That silly deletion comments, whether made by new users or sock puppets get discounted? That an article on a non-notable topic with no non-trivial sources that is nominated for deletion for silly reasons by a silly person will be deleted for good reasons -- like being an article on a non-notable topic with no non-trivial sources? --Dragonfiend 04:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it slightly shocking that the White Ninja Comics article was deleted. 96T 14:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not Kristofer Straub's antics, but the numerous webcomics AFDs that have been brought up and carried, often against consensus, often closed improperly, often with evidence for notability, which indicate a persecution problem. Standards which would merit inclusion for an article on a print comic, weblog, website, or other topic have been deemed insufficient for webcomics related articles by a few particular users such as User:Dragonfiend above. I have trouble finding a single webcomics related article that Dragonfiend has voted to keep. Balancer 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-noteworthy webcomics

Our article on the webcomic The Parking Lot is Full was recently deleted because it lacked noteworthy references. By the same standard (and the standard used throughout the rest of Wikipedia), over 90% of Wikipedia's other webcomics articles should be deleted; speculation about the possibility that some of these articles might become noteworthy in the future is inappropriate because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and if they ever do reach that level of notability their articles can always be recreated. Therefore it seems reasonable to me to organize a more concerted, consistent effort to evaluate how well-referenced and notable Wikipedia's webcomic articles are, and delete all the ones that do not meet Wikipedia's high standards. I started a list of dubious webcomic articles on Talk:The Parking Lot is Full in the course of discussions, but since that page has been deleted I'll reproduce the discussion here so that the issues and articles involved can be further discussed. Hopefully, this will result in Wikipedia taking a more consistent, exacting, and active role in monitoring webcomics, rather than relying on the actions of a few lone editors to keep our webcomic inclusion standards acceptably high. The relevant portions of the discussion, moved from the Talk page, follow: -Silence 21:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's use the same standards that were used to propose this article for deletion to see how many other webcomics should be deleted in the same way for the same reason:

Astounding Space Thrills - Title + author's name gets 226 distinct hits. Unreferenced stub. Cigarro & Cerveja - Title + author's name gets 66 distinct Google hits. Unreferenced stub. College Roomies from Hell!!! - Title + author's name gets 101 distinct Google hits. Very lengthy, but lacks any references (only links are to the official website, the website's forum, Keenspot, and a Livejournal account). Elf Life - Title + author's name gets 73 distinct Google hits. Only claim to notability is winning an award called the Web Cartoonist's Choice Award—the article for which, you'll note, was recently deleted and salted. No reliable sources; the only links are to Keenspot sites and the aforementioned Web Cartoonist's Choice site. Faux Pas (webcomic) - Title + author's name gets 137 distinct hits. No references, no demonstration of notability. Only external links are to the comic itself and the comic's WikiFur entry. General Protection Fault (webcomic) - Title + author's name gets 231 distinct hits. No references; only external links are to the comic itself. Irritability (webcomic) - Title + author's (full) name gets 61 distinct hits. No references; only external links are to the comic itself. Jerkcity - Title + author's name gets 23 distinct hits. Only references are unreliable links to blogs, forums, user-edited sites, LiveJournal communities, etc. Lore Brand Comics - Title + author's name gets 55 distinct hits. Unreferenced stub. Neglected Mario Characters - Title + author's name gets 88 distinct hits. Only reference is to a lone gaming site article (albeit at least a noteworthy one, 1UP.com). NeverNever - Title + author's name gets 76 distinct hits. Unreferenced stub. Nukees - Title + author's name gets 143 distinct hits. No references; only external links are to the comic itself and to Keenspot. The PC Weenies - Title + author's name gets 88 distinct hits. Unreferenced stub. Polymer City Chronicles - Title + author's name gets 97 distinct hits. As above, only real reference is to a 1UP.com article (the same one, in fact). Road Waffles - Title + author's name gets 160 distinct hits. Unreferenced. Sev Wide Web - Title + author's name gets 121 distinct hits. Unreferenced. Staccato (webcomic) - Title + author's name gets 131 distinct hits. Unreferenced. Stealth (webcomic) - Title + author's name gets 171 distinct hits. Unreferenced, external links are to unreliable sources. The Suburban Jungle - Title + author's name gets 135 distinct hits. Lengthy, but lacks any references. Triangle and Robert - Title + author's name gets 102 distinct hits. Unreferenced. Where the Buffalo Roam (webcomic) - Title + author's name gets 159 distinct hits. Sole reference is to a non-noteworthy Comixpedia article. (According to the article, this was the first webcomic on the Internet! If even it doesn't get any notice and fails to meet WP:WEB, what hope do other important early webcomics, like The Parking Lot is Full, have?)

Note that the above list is solely for comics from the 1990s; this means that it is the least likely grouping of comics to have non-noteworthy fancruft arise (because new comics are the ones that are most likely to have rabid fanbases or publicity-seeking authors try to inject them into Wikipedia). If so many other comics, many of them seemingly quite noteworthy, are much more poorly-written, poorly-referenced, and poorly-substantiated than The Parking Lot is Full, why is this arbitrary one being singled out?

I'd actually say that our The Parking Lot is Full article is one of the best-referenced webcomic articles on all of Wikipedia; it's probably even in the top 10% (or even 5%?) in terms of having references for its statements. Most webcomic articles—even for the more noteworthy webcomics, like Ozy and Millie and PvP—have a grand total of 0 reliable sources referenced. -Silence 03:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

More comics who fail to meet these standards:

Alpha Shade - 145 distinct hits. Unreferenced. Angels 2200 - 122 distinct hits. Unreferenced. Antihero for Hire - 81 distinct hits. Unreferenced. Applegeeks - 118 distinct hits. All the references are unreliable blog links, all but one of which is a broken link. Bad Boys of Computer Science - 28 distinct hits (with author's full name). Unreferenced. The Bare Pit - 32 distinct hits. Unreferenced. Barkeater Lake - 153 distinct hits. Unreferenced stub. Basil Flint, P.I. - 77 distinct hits. Unreferenced stub. Beaver and Steve - 163 distinct hits. Lengthy (and jam-packed with dubious, unjustified fair-use images) but unreferenced. Bigger Than Cheeses - 70 distinct hits. Unreferenced. Bob and George - 129 distinct hits. Lengthy (and accompanied by two daughter articles, Characters of Bob and George and Storyline of Bob and George), but lacks any reliable references whatsoever. Brinkerhoff - 154 distinct hits. Stub with no reliable references (only reference is a short list of webcomics from IGN). Bunny (webcomic) - 119 distinct hits (with author's full name). Unreferenced stub. Buttercup Festival - 42 distinct hits (96 with pseudonymic last name). No reliable references: only references are Comixpedia and a couple of student newspapers. Candi (webcomic) - 72 distinct hits (with author's full name). Lengthy, but no reliable references: only references are to the comic itself and to a webforum (and, for good measure, DeviantArt, LiveJournal, and Comixpedia are given external links at the bottom...). Casey and Andy - 67 distinct hits. Lengthy, but no reliable references. Checkerboard Nightmare - 208 distinct hits. Unreferenced. Clan of the Cats - 240 distinct hits. Unreferenced. Concerned - 85 distinct hits (with author's full name). Unreferenced. Contemplating Reiko - 54 distinct hits. Unreferenced. Count Your Sheep - 199 distinct hits. Unreferenced. Courting Disaster - 76 distinct hits. Unreferenced stub. Crimson Dark - 59 distinct hits (with author's full name). Lengthy but unreferenced. Cubetoons - 33 distinct hits. Fair-use images abound; references do not. Cuentos De La Frontera - 53 distinct hits. Unreferenced stub. Darken - 44 distinct hits (with author's full name). No reliable references. Death to the Extremist - 84 distinct hits. Unreferenced. Dominic Deegan: Oracle For Hire - 90 distinct hits. Lengthy but unreferenced. Dresden Codak - 89 distinct hits. Unreferenced. Elf Only Inn - 109 distinct hits. No reliable references. Everybody Loves Eric Raymond - 60 distinct hits. Stub with no reliable references.

-Silence 10:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As for your other comments: I have prodded and AFD'ed some other webcomics as well, but I have tried to be nice and not prod them all. I agree with you that many of those articles are about barely notable subjects and in a poor state, but I can't and won't take them all on at once. I don't stop you nominating all those for deletion if you feel these don't deserve a plave on Wikipedia. But it is a common error to ask not to delete article X because article Y is not deleted yet. Anyway, I have recently nominated articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warbucket (second nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Phoenix, The Chronicles of the Manslaves, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terinu (second nomination), Sverd Shelgr, ... so I'm not singling out this article, I'm well aware that there are many articles which similar or worse problems. But if you can't show how this article has enough sources to pass WP:NOTE, then this article should be deleted. Fram 21:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the list I provided above, my argument isn't "we shouldn't delete this page, because we haven't deleted those pages"; rather it's "we should delete those pages if we delete this one". I'm fine with deleting all the articles I listed above, if this one doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards; I just want us to be consistent. The two main functions of my above list are to give us a starting point for nominating the rest of the unnoteworthy webcomics from Wikipedia, and to provide a broader view of how noteworthy typical Wikipedia webcomic articles are by the criterion which were used to nominate this one for deletion. -Silence 17:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Any comments, opinions, suggestions, etc.? Currently, it seems to me that the simplest course would be to leave Talk page comments on all of the above webcomics telling their editors to add reliable sources and to otherwise demonstrate the notability of the articles in question. Then, after a period of perhaps a week, we should AfD all the articles where editors failed to establish reliable sources and establish noteworthiness for the webcomic in question (both to get more editors' attentions and thus have a better chance at getting reliable sources, and to delete the ones that simply aren't noteworthy or verifiable enough), perhaps in blocks of 10 or so to avoid spamming the AfD sections or giving undue attention to some of the articles. This will have the end result of both improving the quality of the noteworthy webcomic articles, and deleting the less noteworthy ones that don't belong on Wikipedia anyway. -Silence 21:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Astounding Space Thrills is a print comic as well. As for Where the Buffalo Roam (webcomic), being the first really should be enough to establish notability. — Gwalla | Talk 23:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

But, sadly, it is not. Wikipedia policy absolutely requires reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a primary source; that is exactly why Wikipedia:No original research doesn't include a provision saying "oh, but if you think it's really important, feel free to do original research!" -Silence 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Where the Buffalo Roam isn't the first webcomic, or comic on the internet. T.H.E. Fox was online well before Where the Buffalo Roam. Doctor Fun was on the Web before Where the Buffalo Roam. Whether any of these is the "first" of anything is, as far as I can tell, impossible to say -- all we can do so is cite the date and say "one of the first" or "early." There were at the least hundreds of webcomics online by the mid-90s, and we have little ability to tell what was going on in what order in every corner of the web over a decade ago. As far as what to do rith the article listed, I'd suggest tagging them as needing sources and notability, and then start looking for sources. --Dragonfiend 23:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can get behind that. Blanket AfDing would just start another round of "Wikipedia vs. the Webcomics Community" and nobody wants that. — Gwalla | Talk 04:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing "blanket" AfDing, I'm proposing systematic AfDing. If we delete one article for reason X, we should delete all other articles for whom reason X applies equally. Our goal should be to increase the consistency of Wikipedia's webcomics coverage so as to not be equivocal in our standards; it should not be either to stir up or to hide away from controversy. Whether an action would be controversial has nothing to do with whether it is consistent or inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies, and WP:NOR and WP:V are very clear on this issue. The fact that the primacy of Where the Buffalo Roams is disputed illustrates exactly why using unreferenced statements and articles is absolutely unacceptable no matter how noteworthy the topic seems: because we could be saying inaccurate things if we don't back them up with references, no matter how "obvious" they seem to us. Right now we are simply trusting the author of Where the Buffalo Roams (and the others who have repeated his claim without factchecking it) on faith that his was the first webcomic; that this is inadequate is obvious, and is the reason why all webcomics need completely reliable sources to merit existence on Wikipedia at all. I agree with Dragonfiend that we should use "needs references" tags first, and I also noted above that we should make comments about this on the Talk pages of the articles (and perhaps even to the Talk pages of the articles' creators and/or regular editors) in order to drum up efforts to add reliable sources. But if, after having done all that, some of these articles are still completely unreferenced (which wouldn't surprise me, because I expect that the vast majority of articles on the above list will never have any reliable source talk about them!), then we should take appropriate action and nominate them for deletion. Simply waiting forever for them to accumulate references is senseless and contrary to Wikipedia policy and consensus. We should be systematic both in adding cleanup tags and talk-page notices to the above articles, and, after a few weeks of inaction, in proposing the stagnant ones for deletion. -Silence 13:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it would definitely be perceived as blanket AfDing. Best to go slow. Dropping a big wad on AfD would scare people, and the webcomics community is already a little gunshy with regards to Wikipedia. — Gwalla | Talk 06:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Bob & George really doesn't merit three articles. That could definitely be cut down and merged into one. — Gwalla | Talk 04:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO, not all AFDs are carried for the correct reasons. By the standards of other AFDs closed as keep, The Parking Lot is Full and many other articles should be undeleted systematically. Most of the ones on that list meet WP:WEB standards quite directly, incidentally, some for reasons which have nothing to do with the case of The Parking Lot is Full.Balancer 16:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki to Comixpedia requested

Could someone transwiki SugarStars to Comixpedia? Thanks in advance. --Coredesat 20:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I've taken care of it. --Coredesat 09:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I have been going trough webcomic articles and most of them do not seem to fit notability guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Webcomic notability criteria thing seems to go against the first pillar of Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pillars) and to my personal opinion, it should be completely ignored. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB Isvaffel 12:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Category:Comixpedia sourced articles" proposed for deletion

A CfD has been called against Category:Comixpedia sourced articles and most other "categories by source". (The categories are proposed for deletion, not the articles within them). If this category is useful to you, and you would prefer it not to be deleted, please comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_24#"By-source_categories". Jheald 16:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Felicity Flint, Agent from H.A.R.M.

It is notoriously difficult to source a webcomic's notability, so I pass Felicity Flint, Agent from H.A.R.M. over to you to assess it's notability. I will have AfD it if it doesn't get improved, so I hope you can do something with it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sore Thumbs, Alien Dice and possibly others.

Keenspot has published books for Sore Thumbs and Alien Dice, meeting the web criteria. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠05:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

template merge?

I'm thinking of merging {{Infobox Webcomic}} and {{Infobox Comic strip}} as most of the information is covered by one or the other. Thoughts? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠11:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

They seem similar, but to truly merge them some tweaks would have to be made, which affect hundreds of articles on the webcomics side and thousands on the general comics side. While I like the idea of a common comic infobox in theory, in practice both webcomic side and general comic side need to agree before this can even get started. Ambi Valent 03:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems mainly to be that the two templates use different parameter names for similar purposes. There should be a way to allow both names (to minimize the impact on existing articles). — Gwalla | Talk 06:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can do that easily. And the comic strip template is used on less than 50 articles last time I checked. The webcomic template is used on many times more. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠12:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's done and it seems to work. Lemme know if something is broken. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠12:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The comic strip template has been moved to {{infobox comic strip}}. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠02:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject WikiWorld

WikiProject WikiWorld is a webcomic about wikipedia, on wikipedia. Should we "adopt" this project? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠02:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not that I think we need to, but it could happen. Have you asked them? (: Blast ^{[improve me]} 14.05.07 1437 (UTC)

I posted something along those lines on their talk page. No response. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠11:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Town Called Dobson

I added the Town Called Dobson entry this evening. I know it is probably bad, but I am also the creator. I was interviewed at three comic cons in the last year for the Wiki entry and it never seemed to be published. I followed your guidelines and the guidelines for notability (as much as they apply). I have seen in the talk sections over the year, one test for notability for comics, movies or books is if there are more than 1000 hits in Google. I have 803,000. If you guys need to change something, please do. See the entry's talk page for more. Stormbear 01:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving articles between lists

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

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

Webcomics or Web comics?

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

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

New Addition

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

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

- Kat, Robert Maupin

Answer me this.

Why can new entries to articles for comics can be allowed but whenever some people try to start Loserz it gets deleted? Its a Web Comic and it was hosted by scribblekid.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ripster40 (talk • contribs).

Proposed merger

For purposes of centralized discussion, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Merge with WikiProject Webcomics. Thank you. John Carter 18:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)