This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
List of web comics proposed inclusion guidelines
Current proposed web comic inclusion guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:Web comics. Web comics that do not meet these guidelines may be at risk of removal from the list (and possibly from Wikipedia) in the future.
Wondering if this link counts as can be added? the comic is at www.fetchthecat.webs.com or at http://fetch-the-cat.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.67.223 ( talk) 11:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Given that not a single date or name of a creator appears in this list, I find the intro paragraph a bit confusing... -- Delirium 06:13 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Dates can most likely be acquired (Should we do it?). Though I was wondering that myself a while back... -- Pipian
I removed the following introductory paragraph, which could be reinstated if dates and cartoonist names are ever included in the article body. -- RossA 00:28, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The dates shown after a name relate to the period during which the comic appeared.
There is usually a fair degree of accuracy about the starting date, but because of rights being transferred or the very gradual loss of appeal of a particular strip the termination date is often very uncertain.
The names shown refer to the originators of the character; many have continued to be created by others over time.
It is also to be noted that many of the characters appeared in both strip and book format as well as in other media.
Don't like the fact that numerical entries go before A. It's become commonplace in computer-sorted lists, but "real" encyclopedias don't do it. Lee M 05:08, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
BTW there is a temp page at Talk:List of web comics/temp/article -- User:Docu
I've recently started reading "GPF" and there was a cross-over between this and another comic named the "Hosers" in February 2000. However the latter appears to be unavailable (it used to live at http://www.hosers.org/ which is not responding): anyone know where to find it? Phil 12:29, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
Hi! http://www.HOSERS.org - "HOSERS: The Comic Strip" is alive and well. This is Aric, the artist. We've had some lapses in the update schedule recently, but we're not dead. By the way, the HOSERS-GPF Comics crossover was completed with a "part 2" on our site last year, beghinning at http://hosers.org/archive/20040515.html Thank you for reading!
MyTVcomic links to a yahoo group that has no comics and only 7 messages. Google of MyTVcomic finds only wikipedia and derived sites. Google groups and images each return nothing. I suggest we move such dead links to /waiting_existence_proof.
Maybe we also need Talk:List_of_web_comics/existence_proof to store references to the proof we do find. Wikibob 23:24, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)
Oldest known web comic still running: Kevin and Kell details at List of web comics#K
List of comics to track down:
Wikibob 00:40, 2004 Mar 4
I'm trying to get permission to use (under the FDL) samples from the most popular of these web comics. If you want you can help me by writing to the authors of strips and logging it here. Here's the email I use:
People I've written to so far:
If you want to write to anyone else, please announce it here first so we avoid duplicate work. Feel free to use my example text.
So far I've got a positive response from Brian Clevinger of 8BT, no negative response yet. I intend to add the positive ones to the email text to sway other artists. —Eloquence 10:19, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
I'm becoming kinda concerned about this list. Are we just going to allow every 14-year-old with a webcomic to list their site here? Or is there going to be any standard? I mean, I don't even know half of the webcomics on the list and the new ones added I'd never be able to verify in a million years.
Reason being, a lot of webcomics (especially the small ones) would not be encyclopedic as a stand-alone article, but yet, we're writing the list as if an article should be created for all of these. What happens when a brand-new comic uses Wikipedia as a jumping point to generate traffic?
Just some thoughts. RadicalBender 13:55, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Maybe we should remove all red links, so that people aren't quite so tempted to make pages for every comic they come across. We should definitely keep them listed, as it is a "list of web comics", but we should only allow articles for notable comics - ones that are consistently mentioned within webcomic circles ( Penny Arcade comes to mind here, as does Megatokyo), or that are very high in respected Top-Webcomics lists such as the Buzzcomix.net's top ten. PMC 10:07, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If it doesn't deserve a stand-alone article, it doesn't deserve being listed here either. Lists are a way to categorize Wikipedia articles, they are not articles in themselves. See Wikipedia is not, #11, #12. You wouldn't have people on the List of painters who are not encyclopedic either. Without articles this is a link directory, which is not acceptable.
So don't unlink non-notable comics, just remove them. —Eloquence 15:07, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Which, in addition those with articles, should appear in this notable list? My tastes do not fit the usual webcomic reader, the ones I read daily are: Bruno, Bruno the Bandit, Scary go Round and Wigu.
The ones I recognise are:
Bruno by Christopher Baldwin Bruno the Bandit by Ian McDonald Chopping Block by Lee Adam Herold Diesel Sweeties by R. Stevens Freefall by Stanley Gene Catlow by Albert Temple Gneral Protection Fault by Geoffrey Darlington Goats by Jonathan Rosenberg Helen Kevin and Kell by Bill Holbrook Livingingreytown by Dave Kelly Megatokyo One over Zero Scary Go Round (previously Bobbins) by John Allison Sluggy Freelance by Pete Abrams Superosity User Friendly WIGU
But I see many marked as favourite on Belfry's list that could be just as notable to another reader. I just don't want to be the one that decides. Wikibob 16:55, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)
OK, proposal. This is two-fold. The most important goal here would be to prevent Wikipedia from helping to popularize new and unencyclopedic webcomics, right? So, let's try this:
What do you think? Needs some revising. RadicalBender 17:46, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Proposal looks good, I've done some Alexa ranks, and Keenspace won't be a problem as Alexa shows the % of the top 20 keenspace comics, and only 5-6 get an equivalent rank of 250,000.
See a full list of Alex-ified webcomic URLs is at User:Wikibob/todo; here are selected Alexa results (reach is 3 month average). Large numbers are the traffic rankings.
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=brunothebandit.com
brunothebandit.com: 168,242 reach is 9.8
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=genecatlow.com
genecatlow.com: 194,934 reach is 7.7
brunostrip.com: 378,875 reach is 3.1 10kcommotion.com: 311,432 scarygoround.com: 54,707 reach is 27.5 wigu.com: 67,348 reach is 21.5 sluggy.com: 16,496 reach is 96
keenspace.com: 5,796 reach is 170 users per million, of those: 17% go to sexyloser, so that's 20 users per million 6% go to elfonlyinn.keenspace.com, or 10 users per million
other keenspace destinations: flem.keenspace.com ~ 4% thedevilspanties.keenspace.com ~ 3% -- or 5 users per million techfox.keenspace.com ~ 3% utlt.keenspace.com ~ 2% -- or 3-4 users per million, approx 250,000 ranking
From these figures I would choose a ranking of 200,000 or a reach of 7.5 users per million. This knocks out Bruno (boohoo), but keeps Bruno the Bandit. I wouldn't argue with a lower ranking of 100,000 to keep the list smaller still. Of course, if a webcomic already has an article this is all moot. Wikibob 20:21, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)
So, do we have an agreement about the inclusion guidelines, or what? -- Cyrius 03:46, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
This list should be transformed into the already existing, but incomplete Category:Web comics - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:31, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
This is probably going to make me unpopular, but so be it. I deleted all entries that did not link to articles. And yes, that included comics I read and like. Wikipedia is not a links repository, and the inclusion of external links to obscure webcomics without articles bordered on Wikispam. It'd gotten so bad that one of the submitters at Comixpedia simply assumed when looking at it that that was what the article was for. I didn't bother checking Alexia rankings. I figure that's a criterion for getting an article—and if somebody does create an article for any of the deleted entries and re-adds the entry, great—but until then it shouldn't be here.
I considered deleting all external links too, but decided that it wasn't worth it after dropping the un-wikilinked ones. - Gwalla 05:01, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Although Bruno [1] has an Alexa ranking way below the suggested mininum, it did have a lengthy crossover with Helen, Sweetheart of the Internet, which is now syndicated in actual printed newspapers. A piece of trivia like that probably makes it notable enough to include. - Sean Curtin 05:54, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hmm...it looks like my mass-deletion wasn't as effective as I'd hoped. People aren't adding entires that are just external links with no wikilinks to articles—they're adding entries that are just external links with wikilinks to nonexistent articles that they have no intention of writing and that will probably never get written. Argh. - — G↭a⇅a | Talk 20:49, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't think entries should be deleted based on the criterion that there is not a article attached to them. There are a few reasons. First, other less biased critera has been created to able a decision to be made on weather or not a comic should be included or not. This should be followed. If one doesn't feel like checking if a comic meets the critera let it be untill another does. Second, leaving in notable comics that don't have articles could inspire another wikipedian to create articles for them. Third, doing so makes the list biased, arbitrary & incomplete. ZaQ 23:05, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
When this article was on VFD, the policy of removing entries for comics without articles was criticized as being somewhat anti-wiki. And, well, I can kind of see the point there. However, I still think there needs to be some way of discouraging people from using the list for promotion. How about allowing articleless entries, but removing external links? — Gwalla | Talk 01:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
For a long time I felt Bruno and Christopher Baldwin deserved an article, and here's my first attempt. It's a single article for Christopher Baldwin for now with a Bruno redirect. I'm no writer so it needs care and attention. Also it needs mention of crossovers with other well-known webcomics, and maybe a paragraph on the life stages Bruno herself has passed through. My emailed request to use an excerpt of the comic from March has had no reply.
As to what criteria should be used for inclusion, I'm now of the opinion that only existing articles should be here, or more strongly, that once the list has been converted to categories and any information (dates and external links) saved into the respective articles, then the list is not needed. So I think it's good what Sean Curtis did, it finally prodded me to write something. - Wikibob | Talk 00:30, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)
I came across the Wikipedia entry on webcomics and would like to include "PC Weenies" as part of the list. While traffic is not as high as some of the more visible cartoons (Penny Arcade, PvP), it should be important to note that the cartoon has been running from 1998 onwards and has a generally large following. It's appeared on CNet (do a search on their site) and is currently published in print by EE Times, the largest electrical engineering magazine in the world. The site is currently being transitioned (if you visit the site now), but it should be up on July 26th. Kms007 13:42, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Is the title of the comic "Pcweenies", "PC Weenies", or "The PC Weenies"? — Gwalla | Talk 16:42, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm starting to think that this list is more trouble than it's worth. The information contained here is available elsewhere in Wikipedia: the start and end dates and links are (or should be) in the individual comics' articles, and the short description of webcomics duplicates material in the web comic article and the summary of Category:web comics. The actual listing can be handled by the category (anything that goes here should be in the category anyway), which has the additional advantage that a comic can only be added to the category if it has an article, saving editing time.
So, I propose that all of the comics listed here have the category link added if they don't already have it, the start/end dates be added to the appropriate articles if necessary, and this article be turned into a redirect to web comic or Category:web comics. Thoughts? — Gwalla | Talk 22:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, I just went through and made sure that all of the start and end dates listed here are in the appropriate articles. I'm going to go ahead and put this page on VFD, and let the chips fall where they may. — Gwalla | Talk 01:57, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
the comic "Catena" links to a wikipedia article that is completly unrelated to the comic. as such, it seems to be violating the "Webcomics without a Wikipedia article will be removed from the list" criteria.
I want to add White Ninja comic but I don't know the date it started. Fr3d 17:34, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Doesn't have an article of its own - just a footnote in the main Powerpuff Girls article. Lee M 02:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have a webcomic I call "TK Rants". People hail it as one of the best and they love theml. One guy in particular archives them and wishes for a perfect collection (wow Im so popular).
But the thing is, this webcomic is based on a certain community. It isn't really for the public because some material are directed only to that certain community. My webcomic is based on my community called the TK Community, which is a community devoted to the RPGToolkit. The community has at most 200 or 300 actives who expect me to draw a comic everyday (m00chers) so it gets good hits.
I've been doing it for a year and a half now. So is it valid? - TKGB
Since the main article is at webcomic and not at web comic, the spelling of this article's title should be consistent with that. -- Fibonacci 00:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 10:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
beware that User: 71.243.144.215 has created entries on the list that appear to violate the terms on Wikipedia:Web_comics#Using_Alexa_Traffic. the domain name of the comics added was tested using Alexa here and the rank appears to be well below 200,000. Or was that for average hits per month? Either way, both conditions are not reached. i was going to vfd but i found it appears you guys seem pretty good about self-enforcement. -- Bubbachuck 06:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Is it ok to wikilink the author names? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:22, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
Okay, having fixed up all the minor inconsistencies in the list that were bugging me, and clarifying a few dates, there are still a few outstanding problems:
And... I guess that's all that comes to mind, actually, but I'd like to hear what anybody watching this page thinks needs to be done. αγδεε ( ε τ c) 04:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that the article was placed on the deletion list on October 24th, and a discussion was made for the vote of such deletion (which so far has been overwhelmingly populated with Keep votes). This page mentions at the top that this article had been VFD'd on August 12th, 2004. However, that discussion has a different VFD page with similar arguments. (Note that this page was recently renamed -- see Requested move discussion). This seems a little redundant, and given the votes, I beleive that the notice can now be removed and the votes page archived. -- Stux 20:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
There have been some images added here by User:SnafuDave which all appear to come from his own comics. Personally, I've never heard of him, but I haven't really paid attention to webcomics for a while. Is he well-known?
I'm not sure what policies wikipedia has on self-promotion, and I suppose you can't really fault someone for wanting his work seen. But I'm wondering whether the comics are notable enough examples of the medium to have their pictures included, as opposed to comics like Diesel Sweeties, Goats, or a third of the comics in the "S" section.
Well, I just spent the last 20 hours hunting down and pouring over orphaned webcomic articles and linking them up here. I've added {{webcomicsproj}} and the infobox to a bunch of them, which should make them easier to find, but I know there's still quite a few that still aren't accounted for. I think the list works better as a manifest, but cleaning up the categories would probably be a good idea. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 10:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Philosophical question (exemplified by Sexy Losers): what should be used as the end date, the date of the final installment (December 2005) or the date of the ending announcement (March 2006)? Bo Lindbergh 17:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Now that webcomics on the list are required to have a corresponding article, do we still need the external links? I wouldn't mind getting rid of some of the clutter on the page, and the information had darn well better be in the articles in question. Nifboy 2 July 2005 06:43 (UTC)
External links have been removed by commenting out. I've left the external links section at the end. Nice list btw :) -- Linkspamremover 01:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm getting a vibe here (despite what was said earlier on this page). There seems to be enough opposition to removing the external links for me to retreat gracefully and vanquish some spam elsewhere. This list is highly unusual in keeping the external links, and I can see there are unique valid reasons. I will just mention for the record that I have strong opposition to keeping the links, informed by WP:NOT, WP:EL, and particularly m:When should I link externally - especially since each item has an article. However, I approve of the compromise of bracketing the links for aesthetic reasons, and with consensus I will gladly take this task on for you, on the understanding that this list will be monitored relentlessly by you to prevent unnecessary external links (as I'm sure it is). Let me know about that proposal, and drop me a line anytime if you change your minds about removing them completely. rgds. -- Linkspamremover 14:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone (71.116.174.184) seems to have removed the links anyway, a couple of months after the fact. Can someone please revert the page? n.b. the aforementioned editor has made only 2 other edits, one of them 'unnecessary'. 86.144.241.72 11:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC) (EDIT) apologies, wrong user mentioned. It was in fact Tregoweth. Can someone explain the reason for the removal of the links?
"Fair use images in lists" is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. -- Dragonfiend 15:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
When listing the authors for a webcomic, I think we should simplify it such that those that have had the more minor roles in their webcomics should be removed. Just for the sake of space more than anything else.
For instance:
L'il Mell and Sergio by Shaenon K. Garrity, Vera Brosgol, Bill Mudron and Andrew Farago 2003 – .. ( http://www.girlamatic.com/series.php?name=mell)
The article for te webcomic in question says that it is written by Shannon Garrity, but worked on by "a succession of artists". Obviously Garrity would be the main author of this work. There are other articles with similar situations.
It might be better just to write:
L'il Mell and Sergio by Shaenon K. Garrity 2003 – .. ( http://www.girlamatic.com/series.php?name=mell)
Any thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.57.249 ( talk • contribs) .
Lets decide on one style or the other and keep it applied across the whole document. I checked out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes), but other than confirming we should be using en dashes, it provided no guidance on which way is preferred. Personally, I like the improved readability of the –, since it makes it clearer to newcomers which kind of dash we're using. However, I know we've got a fair number of unicode purists around here, and even bots which periodically blanket swap in Unicode for HTML entities. In any case, please express your opinion one way or the other here first rather than simply reverting. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 12:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
My fetish for trimming continues unabated: Are these two links more valuable than Comixpedia? Any reason that we couldn't just have comixpedia? - brenneman {L} 08:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The |importance=no is not necessary on the {{ webcomicsproj}}. It is enough to indicate it's a non-article page. Particularly to those who are not familiar with WP:1.0, calling it "non-important" is very misleading. Please don't add it back in. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 03:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone gone through and looked for redirects/dead external links lately? If not, can we divide the page up and tick off sections. - brenneman {L} 14:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I've verified Shifters through Zortic as valid links and noted a few that have gone dormant. — Tamfang 06:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I've had my broadband knocked out for a while now, and so have had to suffer the indignity of 56k internet access until I sign on to a new ISP. The main article already has a longpage warning on the edit screen and contains 17 images. I always press the stop button on my browser before the images are loaded, because on 56k it would just take ages. This is a list of webcomics, do we even need the images? Although they break up the page nicely, and are there for decorative purposes, why do we need them? They don't add anything else to this article but to give undue mention to the webcomics with images on the list. And they're mostly fair use, for which decoration on lists doesn't really count, but that's not even my main point. So I'm asking for the opinions here about removing the images on the page, I propose getting rid of every single one. - Hahnch e n 01:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Please rename from comicname to comicname_(webcomic). For the reason not to confuse with real-world concepts, for instance 20th_Century_Fox vs 21st_Century_Fox (new name: 21st_Century_Fox_(webcomic)). A few articles already use this extension. User:Yy-bo 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
why not?
I wonder how many titles we'd have if we included all those that have at least 100 strips available; or, if all webcomics were ranked by number of strips available, how many strips it would take to get into the top thousand. — Tamfang 07:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Watch out for links to pages that have the same title as a webcomic but aren't actually about that comic.
Examples:
Bo Lindbergh 22:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Is M really a web comic? Sure it has an online archive, but so do Dilbert and Calvin and Hobbs and nobody calls them web comics. What is the criteria for this type of thing? Master shepherd 03:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm think about rearranging this list into chronological order, for a number of reasons. First, I think it's more useful than alphabetical, since an alphabetical list is really only useful if you know what you're looking for, and if you know what you're looking for you can just type it into the search box. Second, if this were in chronological order it would make a nice link from the Webcomic#History section. Any thoughts before I do this? -- Dragonfiend 06:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
A web comic that has become kind of popular among some friends and me is one that launched a few weeks ago (at Glassesboy.com) and I wasn't sure if it deserves a spot on the list. The art quality is a bit low, it's kind of new, and I don't know how popular it is. I do think it has a lot of potential and the humor is great.
The other comic is Rabite Season (from rabiteseason.com). The website that hosts it is apparently down though so I'm not sure if it would be worth adding. 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The list has always neat and orderly with the alphabetical listing. Now that it's re-arranged by the date the comics started, It has become quite chaotic. Why would anyone go to such lengths to do something that isn't as good as what it was before? Let's take for example... Chronicles of Garas (the article I created has been deleted again, even when I put in everything I knew...). Under the old listing, the person looking for Chronicles of Garas would just look under "C". Under the new listing, the person would have to look under every category, and still probably wouldn't find it. ( CasanovaUnlimited 02:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC) )
I noticed Zap! (webcomic) is not listed here and Sore Thumbs doesn't even have its own page. Zerris 12:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Has an article but isn't in the list. 80.44.140.156 16:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Just a bit curious as to why this list has so few webcomics on it, are you guys just compiling a certain type of webcomics? felinoel 10:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Reordered the lists, to make them alphabetical, within each year. Also moved "Makeshift Miracle" from the ambiguous start date to the 2001 list, as the first comic is dated (and was published) on 20010910. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.183.1 ( talk) 02:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
A previous editor tried to add images to this article. Since a couple other years have images associated with them, I support this addition to illustrate visual examples of comics that started in each year. The images from each comic are already permissible for use under the proper licenses, so there's no reason not to use them here, as well. Obviously, some years won't have pictures since not every comic has an associated sample comic, but where available I say around 2-3 should be included. On a separate note, the edit to add the images was pretty obviously a good faith edit as it represented a move to improve the article, so referring to it as "image spam" is both bad faith and uncivil, since it'd seem to be a case of biting the newcomer. Buspar ( talk) 00:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Right now, any comic that is still in progress has ".." after it. It seems like it would make more sense if they said Present, instead. Or something like that. Mynameisnotpj ( talk) 11:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Why exists no articles about Misfile and Chris Hazelton? They are highly prominent, aren't you bold? -- 149.225.38.137 ( talk) 19:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
A webcomic called darken at http://www.darkencomic.com/ that has been online since 2003 dec 16th. it has its own wiki page and i have seen camoes of its characters and author in other webcomics so it seems highly known in certain circles. it is on going.
may i add it?
p.s. i think this is what i do right... sorry if i totally screwed something up :(
70.50.236.185 ( talk) 05:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Robert,C,Drever "The_Lone_Dragon.
Submitting Also, Bagels for consideration. Obviously it has it's own page as well as an independent site [3] (vs. other comics that are hosted by comicdish drunk duck etc.) The first comics have a time stamp of 1/20/2009, which would make it elegible for the 2009 list. WolfLogic ( talk) 19:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Some of the images used prominently in this list don't look like they belong here as they are from minor webcomics. I've removed them. An editor named "Dragoneer" appears to disagree with me and has accused me of "vandalism"?! That is "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Clearly, Dragoneer is wrong. Thanks, Starblueheather.
Unless the image is free, it should be removed per WP:NFCC. That should free up some room. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 23:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
One of the above editors who wants an image of their own webcomic included on this list has written a blog post titled " HEY, WIKIPEDIA IDIOTS! READ HERE. I found that blog post through a link after they added it to the permissions for their image they want to insert here. There are multiple problems with this. The first would be that this appears to be a webcomic artist with a strong conflict of interest attempting to use wikipedia to promote their webcomic. Another problem would be that this webcomic artist has not released this as a free image that could be used in this list; instead they have released it only for "not-for-profit works" and "non-commercial uses." Also, this artist expresses their belief that their webcomic ought to be given the same weight as xkcd, Diesel Sweeties, etc. because their webcomic is "pretty fucking major. So bite me, Wikiassholes." According their advertising networks stats for their site, they receive about 300 visitors per day. That doesn't sound pretty any kind of expletive major. So, with concerns about conflict of interest, improper image license, and undue weight given to a webcomic with 300 readers, I have removed this image from this list. Sharksaredangerous ( talk) 20:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Unless you release your images under a license which allows commercial reuse, you have not licensed it in a manner in keeping with Wikipedia policies, as explained at the Image use policy. This is a big bone of contention among a number of users, self included, but at present the consensus is that Wikipedia only freely uses images licensed thus, because "for an image to be considered "free" under Wikipedia's Image use policy, the license must permit both commercial reuse and derivative works." If you look at image use policy, which is mandated by the Wikimedia Foundation, you'll see it states Wikipedia's mission [is] to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media. So we can use this image, but only in accordance with our non-free content policies, which means it has to meet Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The criterion spoecific to this debate would be number 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." So I suggest editors dance around that point and work towards a consensus. I'll keep an eye on the debate and I'd advise all editors to respect our civility policies and assume that each other editor acts in good faith, because I hate blocking people. Hiding T 09:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
One of the most impressive web comics I've seen is Subnormality and I'm very suprised that it's not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. They have over 130 highly skilled and detailed comics (most very profound, IMO), and have been going since 2007. Judging by the number of serious comments, they must have a large audience.
I am surprised that nowhere on Wikipedia is the Awkward Zombie webcomic ever mentioned. You know, the one created by Katie Tiedrich? I'm almost positive that it gets thousands and thousands of views a day, and her deviantART page has over 6 million views (in 5 years). Isn't this a notable-enough webcomic? Or do outside sources like news articles that mention it and provide "proof" of its popularity need to be found in order for this article to "legally" exist? Here are some URLs:
It has about 13,351 visitors a month. 60.9% are from the U.S. - dogman15 ( talk) 23:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll repeat what was replied to basically the same question above. Get your sources together and write up a page. The key requirement here is that any webcomic listed on this page must have a Wikipedia entry for it. To have a Wikipedia entry it must be notable in some way. Locate citations to establish notability and go crazy. 173.126.129.118 ( talk) 22:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I wrote up a page here. Feel free to add to it. Blake ( Talk· Edits) 03:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Where did it go? -- 121.1.55.86 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC).
Two of the images used in the list article List of webcomics have been put up for deletion with the edit summary "This file is up for deletion, per CSD F11 (no permission)." Unless evidence of permission is sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org they will be deleted 7 days after the tagging.
Now, I have just sent an email to the copyright holder of the ScaryGoRound image, requesting confirmation that they did indeed give permission to release it under the GFDL. If I receive a positive reply I will forward it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I am doing this because I created derivative images from that sample (used elsewhere in wikipedia) and I relied on the license claimed by the uploader in good faith.
The other image is this Diesel Sweeties sample, which will also be deleted if no evidence of a free license arrives. I leave that to other interested editors to pursue. If you do send an email, please note that here, to avoid duplicate emails being sent. - 84user ( talk) 22:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
For the ScaryGoRound image I have just received a positive reply which I have forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. - 84user ( talk) 19:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
And now, I have just sent an email requesting confirmation to the Diesel Sweeties author. - 84user ( talk) 21:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that this list's hyperlink for Earthsong leads to an article pertaining to a Michael Jackson single. Michael has performed admirably during his lifetime, but as of this writing, I found the webcomic at http://www.earthsongsaga.com . Can someone help to correct this? Entrepreneur68 ( talk) 07:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
like it such a vague few topics and genres that it feals like an unimportant neich list. i think it should be removed ThatCheeseGuy ( talk) 04:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
List of web comics proposed inclusion guidelines
Current proposed web comic inclusion guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:Web comics. Web comics that do not meet these guidelines may be at risk of removal from the list (and possibly from Wikipedia) in the future.
Wondering if this link counts as can be added? the comic is at www.fetchthecat.webs.com or at http://fetch-the-cat.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.67.223 ( talk) 11:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Given that not a single date or name of a creator appears in this list, I find the intro paragraph a bit confusing... -- Delirium 06:13 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Dates can most likely be acquired (Should we do it?). Though I was wondering that myself a while back... -- Pipian
I removed the following introductory paragraph, which could be reinstated if dates and cartoonist names are ever included in the article body. -- RossA 00:28, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The dates shown after a name relate to the period during which the comic appeared.
There is usually a fair degree of accuracy about the starting date, but because of rights being transferred or the very gradual loss of appeal of a particular strip the termination date is often very uncertain.
The names shown refer to the originators of the character; many have continued to be created by others over time.
It is also to be noted that many of the characters appeared in both strip and book format as well as in other media.
Don't like the fact that numerical entries go before A. It's become commonplace in computer-sorted lists, but "real" encyclopedias don't do it. Lee M 05:08, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
BTW there is a temp page at Talk:List of web comics/temp/article -- User:Docu
I've recently started reading "GPF" and there was a cross-over between this and another comic named the "Hosers" in February 2000. However the latter appears to be unavailable (it used to live at http://www.hosers.org/ which is not responding): anyone know where to find it? Phil 12:29, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
Hi! http://www.HOSERS.org - "HOSERS: The Comic Strip" is alive and well. This is Aric, the artist. We've had some lapses in the update schedule recently, but we're not dead. By the way, the HOSERS-GPF Comics crossover was completed with a "part 2" on our site last year, beghinning at http://hosers.org/archive/20040515.html Thank you for reading!
MyTVcomic links to a yahoo group that has no comics and only 7 messages. Google of MyTVcomic finds only wikipedia and derived sites. Google groups and images each return nothing. I suggest we move such dead links to /waiting_existence_proof.
Maybe we also need Talk:List_of_web_comics/existence_proof to store references to the proof we do find. Wikibob 23:24, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)
Oldest known web comic still running: Kevin and Kell details at List of web comics#K
List of comics to track down:
Wikibob 00:40, 2004 Mar 4
I'm trying to get permission to use (under the FDL) samples from the most popular of these web comics. If you want you can help me by writing to the authors of strips and logging it here. Here's the email I use:
People I've written to so far:
If you want to write to anyone else, please announce it here first so we avoid duplicate work. Feel free to use my example text.
So far I've got a positive response from Brian Clevinger of 8BT, no negative response yet. I intend to add the positive ones to the email text to sway other artists. —Eloquence 10:19, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
I'm becoming kinda concerned about this list. Are we just going to allow every 14-year-old with a webcomic to list their site here? Or is there going to be any standard? I mean, I don't even know half of the webcomics on the list and the new ones added I'd never be able to verify in a million years.
Reason being, a lot of webcomics (especially the small ones) would not be encyclopedic as a stand-alone article, but yet, we're writing the list as if an article should be created for all of these. What happens when a brand-new comic uses Wikipedia as a jumping point to generate traffic?
Just some thoughts. RadicalBender 13:55, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Maybe we should remove all red links, so that people aren't quite so tempted to make pages for every comic they come across. We should definitely keep them listed, as it is a "list of web comics", but we should only allow articles for notable comics - ones that are consistently mentioned within webcomic circles ( Penny Arcade comes to mind here, as does Megatokyo), or that are very high in respected Top-Webcomics lists such as the Buzzcomix.net's top ten. PMC 10:07, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If it doesn't deserve a stand-alone article, it doesn't deserve being listed here either. Lists are a way to categorize Wikipedia articles, they are not articles in themselves. See Wikipedia is not, #11, #12. You wouldn't have people on the List of painters who are not encyclopedic either. Without articles this is a link directory, which is not acceptable.
So don't unlink non-notable comics, just remove them. —Eloquence 15:07, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Which, in addition those with articles, should appear in this notable list? My tastes do not fit the usual webcomic reader, the ones I read daily are: Bruno, Bruno the Bandit, Scary go Round and Wigu.
The ones I recognise are:
Bruno by Christopher Baldwin Bruno the Bandit by Ian McDonald Chopping Block by Lee Adam Herold Diesel Sweeties by R. Stevens Freefall by Stanley Gene Catlow by Albert Temple Gneral Protection Fault by Geoffrey Darlington Goats by Jonathan Rosenberg Helen Kevin and Kell by Bill Holbrook Livingingreytown by Dave Kelly Megatokyo One over Zero Scary Go Round (previously Bobbins) by John Allison Sluggy Freelance by Pete Abrams Superosity User Friendly WIGU
But I see many marked as favourite on Belfry's list that could be just as notable to another reader. I just don't want to be the one that decides. Wikibob 16:55, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)
OK, proposal. This is two-fold. The most important goal here would be to prevent Wikipedia from helping to popularize new and unencyclopedic webcomics, right? So, let's try this:
What do you think? Needs some revising. RadicalBender 17:46, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Proposal looks good, I've done some Alexa ranks, and Keenspace won't be a problem as Alexa shows the % of the top 20 keenspace comics, and only 5-6 get an equivalent rank of 250,000.
See a full list of Alex-ified webcomic URLs is at User:Wikibob/todo; here are selected Alexa results (reach is 3 month average). Large numbers are the traffic rankings.
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=brunothebandit.com
brunothebandit.com: 168,242 reach is 9.8
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=genecatlow.com
genecatlow.com: 194,934 reach is 7.7
brunostrip.com: 378,875 reach is 3.1 10kcommotion.com: 311,432 scarygoround.com: 54,707 reach is 27.5 wigu.com: 67,348 reach is 21.5 sluggy.com: 16,496 reach is 96
keenspace.com: 5,796 reach is 170 users per million, of those: 17% go to sexyloser, so that's 20 users per million 6% go to elfonlyinn.keenspace.com, or 10 users per million
other keenspace destinations: flem.keenspace.com ~ 4% thedevilspanties.keenspace.com ~ 3% -- or 5 users per million techfox.keenspace.com ~ 3% utlt.keenspace.com ~ 2% -- or 3-4 users per million, approx 250,000 ranking
From these figures I would choose a ranking of 200,000 or a reach of 7.5 users per million. This knocks out Bruno (boohoo), but keeps Bruno the Bandit. I wouldn't argue with a lower ranking of 100,000 to keep the list smaller still. Of course, if a webcomic already has an article this is all moot. Wikibob 20:21, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)
So, do we have an agreement about the inclusion guidelines, or what? -- Cyrius 03:46, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
This list should be transformed into the already existing, but incomplete Category:Web comics - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:31, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
This is probably going to make me unpopular, but so be it. I deleted all entries that did not link to articles. And yes, that included comics I read and like. Wikipedia is not a links repository, and the inclusion of external links to obscure webcomics without articles bordered on Wikispam. It'd gotten so bad that one of the submitters at Comixpedia simply assumed when looking at it that that was what the article was for. I didn't bother checking Alexia rankings. I figure that's a criterion for getting an article—and if somebody does create an article for any of the deleted entries and re-adds the entry, great—but until then it shouldn't be here.
I considered deleting all external links too, but decided that it wasn't worth it after dropping the un-wikilinked ones. - Gwalla 05:01, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Although Bruno [1] has an Alexa ranking way below the suggested mininum, it did have a lengthy crossover with Helen, Sweetheart of the Internet, which is now syndicated in actual printed newspapers. A piece of trivia like that probably makes it notable enough to include. - Sean Curtin 05:54, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hmm...it looks like my mass-deletion wasn't as effective as I'd hoped. People aren't adding entires that are just external links with no wikilinks to articles—they're adding entries that are just external links with wikilinks to nonexistent articles that they have no intention of writing and that will probably never get written. Argh. - — G↭a⇅a | Talk 20:49, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't think entries should be deleted based on the criterion that there is not a article attached to them. There are a few reasons. First, other less biased critera has been created to able a decision to be made on weather or not a comic should be included or not. This should be followed. If one doesn't feel like checking if a comic meets the critera let it be untill another does. Second, leaving in notable comics that don't have articles could inspire another wikipedian to create articles for them. Third, doing so makes the list biased, arbitrary & incomplete. ZaQ 23:05, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
When this article was on VFD, the policy of removing entries for comics without articles was criticized as being somewhat anti-wiki. And, well, I can kind of see the point there. However, I still think there needs to be some way of discouraging people from using the list for promotion. How about allowing articleless entries, but removing external links? — Gwalla | Talk 01:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
For a long time I felt Bruno and Christopher Baldwin deserved an article, and here's my first attempt. It's a single article for Christopher Baldwin for now with a Bruno redirect. I'm no writer so it needs care and attention. Also it needs mention of crossovers with other well-known webcomics, and maybe a paragraph on the life stages Bruno herself has passed through. My emailed request to use an excerpt of the comic from March has had no reply.
As to what criteria should be used for inclusion, I'm now of the opinion that only existing articles should be here, or more strongly, that once the list has been converted to categories and any information (dates and external links) saved into the respective articles, then the list is not needed. So I think it's good what Sean Curtis did, it finally prodded me to write something. - Wikibob | Talk 00:30, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)
I came across the Wikipedia entry on webcomics and would like to include "PC Weenies" as part of the list. While traffic is not as high as some of the more visible cartoons (Penny Arcade, PvP), it should be important to note that the cartoon has been running from 1998 onwards and has a generally large following. It's appeared on CNet (do a search on their site) and is currently published in print by EE Times, the largest electrical engineering magazine in the world. The site is currently being transitioned (if you visit the site now), but it should be up on July 26th. Kms007 13:42, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Is the title of the comic "Pcweenies", "PC Weenies", or "The PC Weenies"? — Gwalla | Talk 16:42, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm starting to think that this list is more trouble than it's worth. The information contained here is available elsewhere in Wikipedia: the start and end dates and links are (or should be) in the individual comics' articles, and the short description of webcomics duplicates material in the web comic article and the summary of Category:web comics. The actual listing can be handled by the category (anything that goes here should be in the category anyway), which has the additional advantage that a comic can only be added to the category if it has an article, saving editing time.
So, I propose that all of the comics listed here have the category link added if they don't already have it, the start/end dates be added to the appropriate articles if necessary, and this article be turned into a redirect to web comic or Category:web comics. Thoughts? — Gwalla | Talk 22:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, I just went through and made sure that all of the start and end dates listed here are in the appropriate articles. I'm going to go ahead and put this page on VFD, and let the chips fall where they may. — Gwalla | Talk 01:57, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
the comic "Catena" links to a wikipedia article that is completly unrelated to the comic. as such, it seems to be violating the "Webcomics without a Wikipedia article will be removed from the list" criteria.
I want to add White Ninja comic but I don't know the date it started. Fr3d 17:34, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Doesn't have an article of its own - just a footnote in the main Powerpuff Girls article. Lee M 02:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have a webcomic I call "TK Rants". People hail it as one of the best and they love theml. One guy in particular archives them and wishes for a perfect collection (wow Im so popular).
But the thing is, this webcomic is based on a certain community. It isn't really for the public because some material are directed only to that certain community. My webcomic is based on my community called the TK Community, which is a community devoted to the RPGToolkit. The community has at most 200 or 300 actives who expect me to draw a comic everyday (m00chers) so it gets good hits.
I've been doing it for a year and a half now. So is it valid? - TKGB
Since the main article is at webcomic and not at web comic, the spelling of this article's title should be consistent with that. -- Fibonacci 00:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 10:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
beware that User: 71.243.144.215 has created entries on the list that appear to violate the terms on Wikipedia:Web_comics#Using_Alexa_Traffic. the domain name of the comics added was tested using Alexa here and the rank appears to be well below 200,000. Or was that for average hits per month? Either way, both conditions are not reached. i was going to vfd but i found it appears you guys seem pretty good about self-enforcement. -- Bubbachuck 06:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Is it ok to wikilink the author names? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:22, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
Okay, having fixed up all the minor inconsistencies in the list that were bugging me, and clarifying a few dates, there are still a few outstanding problems:
And... I guess that's all that comes to mind, actually, but I'd like to hear what anybody watching this page thinks needs to be done. αγδεε ( ε τ c) 04:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that the article was placed on the deletion list on October 24th, and a discussion was made for the vote of such deletion (which so far has been overwhelmingly populated with Keep votes). This page mentions at the top that this article had been VFD'd on August 12th, 2004. However, that discussion has a different VFD page with similar arguments. (Note that this page was recently renamed -- see Requested move discussion). This seems a little redundant, and given the votes, I beleive that the notice can now be removed and the votes page archived. -- Stux 20:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
There have been some images added here by User:SnafuDave which all appear to come from his own comics. Personally, I've never heard of him, but I haven't really paid attention to webcomics for a while. Is he well-known?
I'm not sure what policies wikipedia has on self-promotion, and I suppose you can't really fault someone for wanting his work seen. But I'm wondering whether the comics are notable enough examples of the medium to have their pictures included, as opposed to comics like Diesel Sweeties, Goats, or a third of the comics in the "S" section.
Well, I just spent the last 20 hours hunting down and pouring over orphaned webcomic articles and linking them up here. I've added {{webcomicsproj}} and the infobox to a bunch of them, which should make them easier to find, but I know there's still quite a few that still aren't accounted for. I think the list works better as a manifest, but cleaning up the categories would probably be a good idea. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 10:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Philosophical question (exemplified by Sexy Losers): what should be used as the end date, the date of the final installment (December 2005) or the date of the ending announcement (March 2006)? Bo Lindbergh 17:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Now that webcomics on the list are required to have a corresponding article, do we still need the external links? I wouldn't mind getting rid of some of the clutter on the page, and the information had darn well better be in the articles in question. Nifboy 2 July 2005 06:43 (UTC)
External links have been removed by commenting out. I've left the external links section at the end. Nice list btw :) -- Linkspamremover 01:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm getting a vibe here (despite what was said earlier on this page). There seems to be enough opposition to removing the external links for me to retreat gracefully and vanquish some spam elsewhere. This list is highly unusual in keeping the external links, and I can see there are unique valid reasons. I will just mention for the record that I have strong opposition to keeping the links, informed by WP:NOT, WP:EL, and particularly m:When should I link externally - especially since each item has an article. However, I approve of the compromise of bracketing the links for aesthetic reasons, and with consensus I will gladly take this task on for you, on the understanding that this list will be monitored relentlessly by you to prevent unnecessary external links (as I'm sure it is). Let me know about that proposal, and drop me a line anytime if you change your minds about removing them completely. rgds. -- Linkspamremover 14:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone (71.116.174.184) seems to have removed the links anyway, a couple of months after the fact. Can someone please revert the page? n.b. the aforementioned editor has made only 2 other edits, one of them 'unnecessary'. 86.144.241.72 11:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC) (EDIT) apologies, wrong user mentioned. It was in fact Tregoweth. Can someone explain the reason for the removal of the links?
"Fair use images in lists" is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. -- Dragonfiend 15:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
When listing the authors for a webcomic, I think we should simplify it such that those that have had the more minor roles in their webcomics should be removed. Just for the sake of space more than anything else.
For instance:
L'il Mell and Sergio by Shaenon K. Garrity, Vera Brosgol, Bill Mudron and Andrew Farago 2003 – .. ( http://www.girlamatic.com/series.php?name=mell)
The article for te webcomic in question says that it is written by Shannon Garrity, but worked on by "a succession of artists". Obviously Garrity would be the main author of this work. There are other articles with similar situations.
It might be better just to write:
L'il Mell and Sergio by Shaenon K. Garrity 2003 – .. ( http://www.girlamatic.com/series.php?name=mell)
Any thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.57.249 ( talk • contribs) .
Lets decide on one style or the other and keep it applied across the whole document. I checked out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes), but other than confirming we should be using en dashes, it provided no guidance on which way is preferred. Personally, I like the improved readability of the –, since it makes it clearer to newcomers which kind of dash we're using. However, I know we've got a fair number of unicode purists around here, and even bots which periodically blanket swap in Unicode for HTML entities. In any case, please express your opinion one way or the other here first rather than simply reverting. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 12:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
My fetish for trimming continues unabated: Are these two links more valuable than Comixpedia? Any reason that we couldn't just have comixpedia? - brenneman {L} 08:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The |importance=no is not necessary on the {{ webcomicsproj}}. It is enough to indicate it's a non-article page. Particularly to those who are not familiar with WP:1.0, calling it "non-important" is very misleading. Please don't add it back in. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 03:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone gone through and looked for redirects/dead external links lately? If not, can we divide the page up and tick off sections. - brenneman {L} 14:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I've verified Shifters through Zortic as valid links and noted a few that have gone dormant. — Tamfang 06:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I've had my broadband knocked out for a while now, and so have had to suffer the indignity of 56k internet access until I sign on to a new ISP. The main article already has a longpage warning on the edit screen and contains 17 images. I always press the stop button on my browser before the images are loaded, because on 56k it would just take ages. This is a list of webcomics, do we even need the images? Although they break up the page nicely, and are there for decorative purposes, why do we need them? They don't add anything else to this article but to give undue mention to the webcomics with images on the list. And they're mostly fair use, for which decoration on lists doesn't really count, but that's not even my main point. So I'm asking for the opinions here about removing the images on the page, I propose getting rid of every single one. - Hahnch e n 01:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Please rename from comicname to comicname_(webcomic). For the reason not to confuse with real-world concepts, for instance 20th_Century_Fox vs 21st_Century_Fox (new name: 21st_Century_Fox_(webcomic)). A few articles already use this extension. User:Yy-bo 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
why not?
I wonder how many titles we'd have if we included all those that have at least 100 strips available; or, if all webcomics were ranked by number of strips available, how many strips it would take to get into the top thousand. — Tamfang 07:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Watch out for links to pages that have the same title as a webcomic but aren't actually about that comic.
Examples:
Bo Lindbergh 22:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Is M really a web comic? Sure it has an online archive, but so do Dilbert and Calvin and Hobbs and nobody calls them web comics. What is the criteria for this type of thing? Master shepherd 03:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm think about rearranging this list into chronological order, for a number of reasons. First, I think it's more useful than alphabetical, since an alphabetical list is really only useful if you know what you're looking for, and if you know what you're looking for you can just type it into the search box. Second, if this were in chronological order it would make a nice link from the Webcomic#History section. Any thoughts before I do this? -- Dragonfiend 06:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
A web comic that has become kind of popular among some friends and me is one that launched a few weeks ago (at Glassesboy.com) and I wasn't sure if it deserves a spot on the list. The art quality is a bit low, it's kind of new, and I don't know how popular it is. I do think it has a lot of potential and the humor is great.
The other comic is Rabite Season (from rabiteseason.com). The website that hosts it is apparently down though so I'm not sure if it would be worth adding. 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The list has always neat and orderly with the alphabetical listing. Now that it's re-arranged by the date the comics started, It has become quite chaotic. Why would anyone go to such lengths to do something that isn't as good as what it was before? Let's take for example... Chronicles of Garas (the article I created has been deleted again, even when I put in everything I knew...). Under the old listing, the person looking for Chronicles of Garas would just look under "C". Under the new listing, the person would have to look under every category, and still probably wouldn't find it. ( CasanovaUnlimited 02:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC) )
I noticed Zap! (webcomic) is not listed here and Sore Thumbs doesn't even have its own page. Zerris 12:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Has an article but isn't in the list. 80.44.140.156 16:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Just a bit curious as to why this list has so few webcomics on it, are you guys just compiling a certain type of webcomics? felinoel 10:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Reordered the lists, to make them alphabetical, within each year. Also moved "Makeshift Miracle" from the ambiguous start date to the 2001 list, as the first comic is dated (and was published) on 20010910. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.183.1 ( talk) 02:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
A previous editor tried to add images to this article. Since a couple other years have images associated with them, I support this addition to illustrate visual examples of comics that started in each year. The images from each comic are already permissible for use under the proper licenses, so there's no reason not to use them here, as well. Obviously, some years won't have pictures since not every comic has an associated sample comic, but where available I say around 2-3 should be included. On a separate note, the edit to add the images was pretty obviously a good faith edit as it represented a move to improve the article, so referring to it as "image spam" is both bad faith and uncivil, since it'd seem to be a case of biting the newcomer. Buspar ( talk) 00:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Right now, any comic that is still in progress has ".." after it. It seems like it would make more sense if they said Present, instead. Or something like that. Mynameisnotpj ( talk) 11:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Why exists no articles about Misfile and Chris Hazelton? They are highly prominent, aren't you bold? -- 149.225.38.137 ( talk) 19:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
A webcomic called darken at http://www.darkencomic.com/ that has been online since 2003 dec 16th. it has its own wiki page and i have seen camoes of its characters and author in other webcomics so it seems highly known in certain circles. it is on going.
may i add it?
p.s. i think this is what i do right... sorry if i totally screwed something up :(
70.50.236.185 ( talk) 05:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Robert,C,Drever "The_Lone_Dragon.
Submitting Also, Bagels for consideration. Obviously it has it's own page as well as an independent site [3] (vs. other comics that are hosted by comicdish drunk duck etc.) The first comics have a time stamp of 1/20/2009, which would make it elegible for the 2009 list. WolfLogic ( talk) 19:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Some of the images used prominently in this list don't look like they belong here as they are from minor webcomics. I've removed them. An editor named "Dragoneer" appears to disagree with me and has accused me of "vandalism"?! That is "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Clearly, Dragoneer is wrong. Thanks, Starblueheather.
Unless the image is free, it should be removed per WP:NFCC. That should free up some room. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 23:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
One of the above editors who wants an image of their own webcomic included on this list has written a blog post titled " HEY, WIKIPEDIA IDIOTS! READ HERE. I found that blog post through a link after they added it to the permissions for their image they want to insert here. There are multiple problems with this. The first would be that this appears to be a webcomic artist with a strong conflict of interest attempting to use wikipedia to promote their webcomic. Another problem would be that this webcomic artist has not released this as a free image that could be used in this list; instead they have released it only for "not-for-profit works" and "non-commercial uses." Also, this artist expresses their belief that their webcomic ought to be given the same weight as xkcd, Diesel Sweeties, etc. because their webcomic is "pretty fucking major. So bite me, Wikiassholes." According their advertising networks stats for their site, they receive about 300 visitors per day. That doesn't sound pretty any kind of expletive major. So, with concerns about conflict of interest, improper image license, and undue weight given to a webcomic with 300 readers, I have removed this image from this list. Sharksaredangerous ( talk) 20:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Unless you release your images under a license which allows commercial reuse, you have not licensed it in a manner in keeping with Wikipedia policies, as explained at the Image use policy. This is a big bone of contention among a number of users, self included, but at present the consensus is that Wikipedia only freely uses images licensed thus, because "for an image to be considered "free" under Wikipedia's Image use policy, the license must permit both commercial reuse and derivative works." If you look at image use policy, which is mandated by the Wikimedia Foundation, you'll see it states Wikipedia's mission [is] to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media. So we can use this image, but only in accordance with our non-free content policies, which means it has to meet Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The criterion spoecific to this debate would be number 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." So I suggest editors dance around that point and work towards a consensus. I'll keep an eye on the debate and I'd advise all editors to respect our civility policies and assume that each other editor acts in good faith, because I hate blocking people. Hiding T 09:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
One of the most impressive web comics I've seen is Subnormality and I'm very suprised that it's not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. They have over 130 highly skilled and detailed comics (most very profound, IMO), and have been going since 2007. Judging by the number of serious comments, they must have a large audience.
I am surprised that nowhere on Wikipedia is the Awkward Zombie webcomic ever mentioned. You know, the one created by Katie Tiedrich? I'm almost positive that it gets thousands and thousands of views a day, and her deviantART page has over 6 million views (in 5 years). Isn't this a notable-enough webcomic? Or do outside sources like news articles that mention it and provide "proof" of its popularity need to be found in order for this article to "legally" exist? Here are some URLs:
It has about 13,351 visitors a month. 60.9% are from the U.S. - dogman15 ( talk) 23:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll repeat what was replied to basically the same question above. Get your sources together and write up a page. The key requirement here is that any webcomic listed on this page must have a Wikipedia entry for it. To have a Wikipedia entry it must be notable in some way. Locate citations to establish notability and go crazy. 173.126.129.118 ( talk) 22:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I wrote up a page here. Feel free to add to it. Blake ( Talk· Edits) 03:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Where did it go? -- 121.1.55.86 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC).
Two of the images used in the list article List of webcomics have been put up for deletion with the edit summary "This file is up for deletion, per CSD F11 (no permission)." Unless evidence of permission is sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org they will be deleted 7 days after the tagging.
Now, I have just sent an email to the copyright holder of the ScaryGoRound image, requesting confirmation that they did indeed give permission to release it under the GFDL. If I receive a positive reply I will forward it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I am doing this because I created derivative images from that sample (used elsewhere in wikipedia) and I relied on the license claimed by the uploader in good faith.
The other image is this Diesel Sweeties sample, which will also be deleted if no evidence of a free license arrives. I leave that to other interested editors to pursue. If you do send an email, please note that here, to avoid duplicate emails being sent. - 84user ( talk) 22:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
For the ScaryGoRound image I have just received a positive reply which I have forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. - 84user ( talk) 19:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
And now, I have just sent an email requesting confirmation to the Diesel Sweeties author. - 84user ( talk) 21:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that this list's hyperlink for Earthsong leads to an article pertaining to a Michael Jackson single. Michael has performed admirably during his lifetime, but as of this writing, I found the webcomic at http://www.earthsongsaga.com . Can someone help to correct this? Entrepreneur68 ( talk) 07:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
like it such a vague few topics and genres that it feals like an unimportant neich list. i think it should be removed ThatCheeseGuy ( talk) 04:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)