Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)/Archive 4

message: This archive page covers approximately the dates between 11 December 2005 and 04 January 2006.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Wikipedia talk:Notability (websites)/Archive 05. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Hiding  talk 12:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

message: *How about just Keenspot strips (perhaps further restricted to active and archived strips)? I saw a lot of discussion on the smaller collectives (particularly Dayfree) and a lot of discussion on MT (particularly "Big Dick's Ball"), but I think Elf Only Inn is as close as you can get to worst case scenario. Nifboy 22:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syndicates are in, but in some other form 

message: #Phil Sandifer 04:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: You cannot hold polls to magically override consensus on other pages

message: I am requesting that notability guidelines use a central naming scheme similiar to WP:MoS. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Requested moves.—jiy (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Since someone insisted that I mention it here first (personally, I thought it was quite reasonable), here's what I propose to add. Comment on them as you see fit.
*Add in magazine publication with print run. If being in print is notable, being run in a magazine should also count. Setting the circulation/subscription bar at 5000 should be sufficient, since that's the same number of people we consider notable for a web forum.
*Listing in a Top 100 site as a substitue for Alexa. Since Alexa is statistically inaccurate, it makes sense to allow something else to be used in its stead. Webcomic Top 100 lists came to my mind. See my edit of the article for some of the ones I suggested. If anyone has better suggestions, feel free to pitch them. (Note: the comic lists I put in there were some I knew off the top of my head; there are probably better ones out there.) Xuanwu 05:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Criteria

message: Does anyone disagree with the contention that being hosted (or formerly being hosted) on Keenspot is a sign of notability in webcomics? Is this a generally agreed on point or not? J•A•K 21:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Keenspot]] 

message: I have gone ahead and been WP:BOLD in updating the forum criteria. I do not believe that a mere usercount can make an argument for encyclopedicity. Therefore, I've added "has made a verifiable impact beyond its own community." I base this on the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The forum site, where an article was written about a forum that had more than 5,000 users... but had absolutely no encyclopedic information available about it, and thus a consensus developed to delete the article. For an article about a forum to have verifiable sources, it must have had articles, blogs, papers, whatever, published about it outside its own userbase - thus the new criteria. I invite discussion. FCYTravis 03:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forums 

message: *
*
*
*
Note that The forum site actually passed WP:WEB quite easily by having well over 5,000 members (and many other claims to notoriety), yet was deleted. It should probably be undeleted, and hence is a poor example of something to be used as an example here. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 02:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of example forums 

message: On Merrimack, New Hampshire, there's a webforum on there that somebody put up there that is very borderline when it comes to even having as a link. I live there, and it's becoming something of a joke except for those who use it considering that there are about 20 active users out of the town's population of 28,000 or so. 
What do you think? Is that notable or not? Until that's decided, i'll WP:AGF and make sure it stays up there since it's been put back a few times. karmafist 05:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question Regarding Sites as Links

message: I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, but does this policy cover online 'non-forum' groups (ie gaming clans)? If it does, could someone explain how? If it doesn't, would it be worthwile expanding the proposal to encompass these web-based entities? Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 21:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't think these guidelines need to cover every different type of web-based "thing" in the world.  I think normal standards of verifiability can answer most questions about what belongs.  Friday (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 21:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding online groups 

message: Shouldn't we have some guideline as to what should be the minimum number of related google hits a topic should have to be declared notable.--May the Force be with you!  Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 06:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The immediate problem with that is, how do you determine whether a "hit" is relevant to the topic at hand or not? How many websites are named after ordinary objects? Nifboy 06:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The other problem is that something can have eleventy trazillion Google hits and still not be encyclopedic. Blogs and linkspam farms make it easy to inflate a Google count. FCYTravis 21:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google 

message: Reading the other parts of the discussions, I get strong feeling that most people here want entries to be unique, not just notable. Do you think that it's more important for a site to be big, or to be first to accomplish something? - CorbinSimpson 05:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, entries must be externally verifiable and they must say something of interest to a broader community. Both *big* and *first* are good first steps, but I could have the first and biggest box of Triscuits in my trophy cabinet and it still wouldn't be encyclopedic. FCYTravis 06:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But remember, unlike triscuits, web comics are much the same as print comics. Web comics are a new twist on an old thing. So those who are the first are notable as much as those who have a great deal of impact are notable. Xuanwu 09:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Web comics are not much the same as print comics. Print creates a quality of permanence and implies a substantial cost to publish and print thousands of copies. Web comics can come and go as a flash in the pan - one need not have any sort of backing, recognition, money, publisher contract, etc., just a free Web host. Now of course, in general this is good, as it encourages creativity outside straitlaced confines of what might be accepted by a print publisher. But it also means that it's quite easy to "publish" a Web comic that is utter dreck and keep doing it, for unlike traditional comics, one need not actually be "successful" to keep being published. The result is that you get more interesting stuff, and a plethora of utterly uninteresting and entirely non-notable imitators. FCYTravis 11:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That basically sums up the entire argument that seems to be going on here. A webcomic is both a website and a comic. By virtue of being a website, it is one of a vast multitude of its kind, easily acquired and simply maintained. By virtue of being a comic it is an artform, albiet an artform that is primarily thought to be commercial in nature. Nifboy 18:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd disagree that webcomics are primarily commercial: unlike print comics, they need not worry about selling, and thus don't have to do what is popular to get by. J•A•K 20:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I said "thought to be". Before webcomics, the most applicable analogue was indie comics,  which the general public wasn't exactly aware of. They knew Garfield and Marvel, the industries in which both reside being highly commercial. Even for webcomics, almost all of the most notable are the most successful, commercially. Nifboy 07:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: A webcomic is a webcomic.  It is published on a website.  A comic is a comic.  It is printed on a piece of paper.  If a webcomic is notable, it will have coverage in reputable sources.  Those sources should be such sources as are respected within the field.  Once it is possible to cite such a source, it is permissable to have an article regarding the webcomic.  We are currently too close in time to determine what is and isn't of use to future scholars, and we should not attempt to.  If a webcomic is utter dreck but keeps on running, that fact makes it notable.  Once someone comments on this fact in a reputable source, it is recordable. As to the idea that webcomics are somehow different in that the model of publication allows an awful lot of imitators, I would have to contend that any new medium or form exhibits the same tendency.  Merseybeat?  Britpop?  Heavy metal?  Punk?  Impressionism? Modernism?  Let us rely on afd to eventually dictate our inclusion standards on a case by case basis over an extended period of time.  Wikipedia is a work in progress, and will always remain so.  There is no publication date, there is no deadline.  Wikipedia does not have to be finished today.  It merely needs to have improved on yesterday. Hiding  talk 09:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is easy enough to print a webcomic using a printer. Arguing that a webcomic is not a comic seems rather misguided: most reputable definitions of comics include webcomics, most definitions of webcomics refer to them as comics. Sources reputable withint which field? Many people are unhappy with those sources generally considered reputable in webcomics (due to the fact they are of blog format, and could include anything to boost popularity). By your logic there is either no distinction between comics and webcomics, in which case we need a Notability (webcomics) page, or a webcomic is by definition not a comic, which, as I've said, goes against most respected sources on the subject.J•A•K 10:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A webcomic is neither a comic book nor a comic strip. The three different "comics" play by entirely different rules, although they use the same visual medium. The argument I've seen put forth several times, however, is that a webcomic is a website, and should play by the same rules as websites, in regards to Wikipedia. Nifboy 13:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I don't dispute that a webcomic is neither a comic book nor a comic strip, however neither was that what Hiding said: webcomics are comics. I'd argue webcomics have more in common with comic strips than websites in general. The field of sources respected in websites is not the same as that for sources reputable in the field of websites. A webcomic may be a website, but it isn't just a website. J•A•K 15:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see some arguments regarding a webcomic being a website.  A website can definitely be built around a webcomic, and a webcomic needs a site to exist, but as per comics and paper, they are not analogous.  A website, when all is said and done, is a location on the web.  A webcomic is a comic stored at that location. And this page already makes it clear webcomics do not play by the same rules as websites, and I'm sure we'd agree it's fair to say webcomics have always had differing inclusion criteria to websites per se.  Wikipedia is not a web directory does not mean we do not list webcomics.  It means we are not a directory of the web, just the same as we are not an A to Z or a phone directory. Hiding  talk 21:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be good, could anyone provide some arguments that webcomics should be classed with websites? J•A•K 22:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *The apparent facts that criteria for websites are mostly consensual, and those for comics are (1) different and (2) heavily disputed, makes me believe they should not be classed together. Radiant_>|< 22:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: * I am suggesting that some of the guidelines are a bit arbitrary - based on what research, if any?  In order to allow a level playing field, perhaps more flexibility about 'uniqueness' and 'usefulness' should be allowed for to even it up?  I suggested this on the page (hope it wasn't over-stepping - if so, please feel free to re-edit). BobbyRay 03:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability vs. Uniqueness 

message: We've had some archiving that cut it off, but the talk page had indicated that the current guidelines are out of step with the discussion.  I'll refactor and make some summaries. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of play 

message: Is there anyway of establishing old Alexa rankings? If so, a link to it would be rather useful. J•A•K 16:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Alexa 

message: One of the problems is that Alexa just doesn't have the juice to crawl the web often enough. Second is that Alexa are now leeching entire copies of the web and selling access to it by the hour - so many website owners will likely block it (using robots.txt) for both performance and ethical reasons, making their rankings completely unreliable. This doesn't cripple the guidelines though, since there are lots of other ways that an Alexa-blocking site could be demonstrated to be WP-worthy, but it's something to think about Cynical 20:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Until I came to Wikipedia, Alexa was one of those sites I habitually blocked because of its spyware affiliations.  When I found many references to it as an authoritative source for Web site notability I gave it another chance.  Not for long, though.  A good Alexa score may provide some proof of notability, but there's no doubt it can be gamed, and certainly having a bad score isn't creditable evidence against notability. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've altered the Alexa warning to make note of this. Thanks for mentioning them. If something that's being considered as a criteria could be inaccurate, it has to be noted so people don't make a mistake. Xuanwu 10:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with Alexa rankings 

message: I'm a super-inclusionist myself (see my user page section on the issue), but if we're talking about notability, why isn't PageRank included?  The PageRank of a page is what determines the world's most popular search engine's results.  It can be easily determined for any given page by installing the Google Toolbar.  Unlike Alexa, it is based on meaningful criteria: not "which users of my spyware visit this site", but "how many sites link to this one and how reputable are those sites".
If Alexa ratings of 10,000 or better are okay, I'd suggest that perhaps any page with PageRank 5 or better should be notable according to these guidelines.  (The scale is sort of logarithmic in spread; there are a scarce handful of PageRank 10s, a few dozen PageRank 9s, and so on.)  An example of a site with PageRank 5 is nyc.gov (Alexa ranking 2,933).  Then again, another example of a site with PageRank 5 is rometotalrealism.org, a computer game modification site (Alexa ranking 252,726), so perhaps PageRank 6 would be a better line to draw.
Just keep in mind that Google's PageRank holds a finger to the pulse of the Internet, Alexa does not.  If a lot of people link to something, barring link-spamming, it's probably important to a lot of people, even if people with Alexa toolbars don't visit it much. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um. Before I get into a discussion of the merits on PR, is there a way to find a page's PR without installing the Google Toolbar? Nifboy 14:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I'm aware, no.  Is that a problem?  Slight nuisance, but I find it kind of fun to see the PageRank meter bounce everywhere. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 09:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this idea. Deleting Alexa completely and instead using Page ranks could be a very good idea, especially since it may be more reliable. Xuanwu 10:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't support this until and unless there's a non-toolbar method of finding this.  Not everyone uses IE or Firefox, and not everyone that does wants to waste the screenspace on Yet Another toolbar. —Cryptic (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PageRank 

message: I've removed the sections from the main page that did not have support on the talk page, or had not had support demonstrated in AfDs.  This page has been very active, and we haven't been making much progress.  Could we please discuss any further additions to these guidelines before we put them on the main page? - brenneman(t)(c) 12:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaron, I thought that the above discussion seemed to have some consensus that Keenspot seemed to be an acceptable degree of notablilty, which seems to have been held up on AfD. J•A•K 15:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added back a clause regarding syndicated strips being notable.  I don't see any consensus for removal. I can see only discussion with no consensus reached.  I'm also unconvinced by the argument that this page needs to be dictated by AFD's.  As to the argument that additions should be discussed on the talk page, so should removals, surely.  I am aware that the wording of the syndication clause I have reinserted is not the same as what was removed.  However I believe it reflects a consensus that syndication of a webstrip is a sign of notability.  Hiding  talk 16:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Actually, since this guideline (or at least the webcomic part) is still under development, it makes a lot of sense to strike parts that aren't consensually supported. Once a guideline is stable it can be assumed that what it says is consensual (and therefore removing anything would require consensual support) but this isn't nearly stable yet. Radiant_>|< 16:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe the use of the term "syndicates" is a misnomer. A syndicate is a business that sells content to multiple providers (see syndicated newspaper columnists, syndicated television programs, etc.) I believe the examples that have been used are more properly "publishers" in the case of Modern Tales and Keenspot, and "collectives" in the case of the non-professional artists groups. That said, neither is an indicator of notability. -- Dragonfiend 16:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Hiding, I'm changing that to Keenspot, as that's the only one we seemed to have any degree of consensus on. J•A•K 17:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I notice that it's now "publishers", but can someone please give me a link to somewhere even that was agreed? - brenneman(t)(c) 17:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the change to "publishers" -- "syndicates" is a misonomer as I stated above. I don't think the publishers criteria ought to be in there either. Publishers often sign non-notable artists in the hopes that the artists will be come notable; in many cases the artists do not become notable. A publisher choosing to publish a webcomic does not make it notable. We have multiple reputable, verifiable sources to determine the notability of webcomics; we do not need to rely upon a publisher's potentially incorrect business decisions. That said, major changes to this page ought to be discussed on the talk page, and edit summaries should not contain comments about other users. Per WP:NPA, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." -- Dragonfiend 17:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dragonfiend, although your arguement about "syndicates" being a misnomer is correct, I'd say that since "syndicates" is the term they are best known under, there's an argument for that to be made. Mind you, since Keenspot, the [insert preferred term here] we have closest to consensus on, identifies itself as a publisher, it's equally arguable that that term is correct. (I can't find a mention of either term on Modern Tales, although I'm not a member.) J•A•K 18:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe "syndicates" is the term they are best known under. You correctly point out that Keenspot is referred to as a publisher, and Modern Tales is generally referered to as "the leading commercial webcomics publisher"  by themselves and others. Dragonfiend 19:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Referring to Snowspinner specifically, or me re-adding Keenspot as well? Your edit seemed to be a bit more of your bias than current consensus, to me, though that's my POV showing, and I'm sure that you were acting in good faith. Snowspinner's revert did make me groan a bit (despite being roughly on his side), due to the fact I knew suspected this would happen. As it stands, this edit seems to be roughly consensus, though I'm sure we have issues with it. Still work to be done, and that Pagerank suggestion is a good idea. J•A•K 18:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Snowspinner's more recent edit, with his justification, makes his earlier edit more justified to me, although it still seems rather abrupt. J•A•K 20:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:CON vs WP:BOLD 

message: See, again we're back to what constitutes a website.  Does Slate constitute a website?  It's getting rather circular.  I'm not disputing that webcomics do not garner mainstream media interest, I'm merely stating I do not believe it is necessary to wait until an artist has before we write an article on them, that notability can in fact be achieved without such attention, and that such attention can be caused by notability.  I would also add that if a critical assesment of a webcomic is made, then an article can be written on that webcomic using that critical assesment as the base.  I would also argue that WP:MUSIC allows as nnotability coverage in major music media.  Now given webcomics is a new medium, it seems unfair to discount a publication simply on age, the medium it covers isn't too old, so it seems rather unfair to disbar on that criterion.  To my eye a lot of comics coverage seem to source Comixpedia as the most noted of the webcomics media, and so I would argue that it should be thought of as a reputable source in this instance.  This doesn't mean I am arguing for a strip to receive an article at the merest mention within the magazine, simply that I don't think it is overly important where the critical assesment is published, but rather the value of the critical assesment is.  But I would figure we are fairly likely to be on the same page, in that afd is the place where we decide an article's worthiness for inclusion, and not in these guidelines.  I just feel these guidelines are instruction creep, and that we should trust afd to weed out the non notable articles case by case. Hiding  talk 20:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comixpedia

message: - brenneman(t)(c) 17:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that it's now "publishers", but can someone please give me a link to somewhere even that was agreed? - brenneman(t)(c) 17:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the change to "publishers" -- "syndicates" is a misonomer as I stated above. I don't think the publishers criteria ought to be in there either. Publishers often sign non-notable artists in the hopes that the artists will be come notable; in many cases the artists do not become notable. A publisher choosing to publish a webcomic does not make it notable. We have multiple reputable, verifiable sources to determine the notability of webcomics; we do not need to rely upon a publisher's potentially incorrect business decisions. That said, major changes to this page ought to be discussed on the talk page, and edit summaries should not contain comments about other users. Per WP:NPA, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." -- Dragonfiend 17:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dragonfiend, although your arguement about "syndicates" being a misnomer is correct, I'd say that since "syndicates" is the term they are best known under, there's an argument for that to be made. Mind you, since Keenspot, the [insert preferred term here] we have closest to consensus on, identifies itself as a publisher, it's equally arguable that that term is correct. (I can't find a mention of either term on Modern Tales, although I'm not a member.) J•A•K 18:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe "syndicates" is the term they are best known under. You correctly point out that Keenspot is referred to as a publisher, and Modern Tales is generally referered to as "the leading commercial webcomics publisher"  by themselves and others. Dragonfiend 19:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Referring to Snowspinner specifically, or me re-adding Keenspot as well? Your edit seemed to be a bit more of your bias than current consensus, to me, though that's my POV showing, and I'm sure that you were acting in good faith. Snowspinner's revert did make me groan a bit (despite being roughly on his side), due to the fact I knew suspected this would happen. As it stands, this edit seems to be roughly consensus, though I'm sure we have issues with it. Still work to be done, and that Pagerank suggestion is a good idea. J•A•K 18:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Snowspinner's more recent edit, with his justification, makes his earlier edit more justified to me, although it still seems rather abrupt. J•A•K 20:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really really bad form to anyone else, or just me? 

message: Just before Aaron did his big edit, I removed the part that said a website of a company notable according to the notablity guidelines for companies was notable. Wasn't there once a bit on this article that said that there shouldn't, or it should redirect to the company's entry? Anyway, if anyone actually thinks that that either of the statements should be back in, please explain your reasoning here here. EDIT: Oops, the warning's still at the bottom. 15:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Companies 

message: In my honest opinion, this should be changed to 1000. Many of the forums with articles here don't even have that many members. --Revolución (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  5000? 

message: Any objections to striking the bullet "5,000 or more apparently unique members applies to forums which anonymous users can read" as m:instruction creep? Basically it encourages us to make an arbitrary guess after data we cannot verify. Radiant_>|< 18:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  5000 members = 16500 posts? 

message: I'm probably being dense here, but if an online strip is being published in a paper magazine, then doesn't that mean the strip is no longer a webcomic?  The same can also apply to the fact that a webcomic has a collected edition, surely? Hiding  talk 18:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Published in a paper magazine 

message: Some are suggesting that some part of this guideline ought to deal with webcomics artist collectives. Please discuss the reasoning behind the inclusion of artist collectives in general as well as specific artist collectives (I'm presuming that all artist collectives shouldn't be included). Thanks. -- Dragonfiend 20:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we just be clear that this is still a proposed guideline?  Hiding  talk 20:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hiding, "proposed guideline", in this case, means that it is used as justification to delete anyway. Practice informs policy-makers' decisions, so those guidelines which are adhered to are generally made into policy. So it is still a proposed guideline, but people will continue using it in practice as justification for deletion. J•A•K 21:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I'm missing a trick, people can use it as an argument to delete, but it should never be justification.  The article's merits should justify the decision, reached by consensus.  I ain't going to dictate to people what is up for inclusion and deletion, and I don't expect others to do so, that's against policy. I know full well how policy is made, and I also understand the difference between policy and guideline, and I also understand that if there's still discussion abouit what shape a guideline is, it isn't actually a guideline.  All I can see here is discussion on what shape the guideline should be, which means there isn't actually a guideline, since you don't actually have the consensus of many editors.  Looking through the history of this debate, there never really has been consensus amongst editors on what would constitute notability for a webcomic, and so it's disingenuous to suggest there are.  What worries me is that nobody should cast a vote on the basis that these guidelines form an inclusion policy. Hiding  talk 23:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Dragonfiend, Snowspinner's edit summaries say that Dayfree Press membership is explicitly endorsed by the Able and Baker AfD decision. Dumbrella and Blank Label Comics are of roughly equal significance, so should be included too. Plus, of course, Blank Label was formed by ex-Keenspotters, so they're in anyway. J•A•K 21:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it was the Dayfree membership that I based my vote on Able and Baker on, and it was my vote that was roundly cited in "as per" votes, so I think there's a clear enough desire for Dayfree. Phil Sandifer 21:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see a case for Blank Label.  I'd need convincing on the others. Hiding  talk 20:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The problem, Radiant, is that two pages have been merged into one.  You have the established guideline of WP:WEB, and WP:COMIC, which has never been a guideline and has always been a proposal which never found consensus, on the same page.  One is a guideline, the other has never been.  It's disingenuous to describe it as a guideline based on what links here, when what links here may not be linking to the section in question. Hiding  talk 23:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Quality.  It's also worth noting that afd's which link to the webcomic guidelines refer to guidelines we no longer include, so I would be wary of using those as a guide to any consensus inherent in those links.  I would suggest it's also slightly unsettling that articles are being listed for deletion on the basis of not matching these guidelines when they've never been adopted.  The purpose of the development of notability guidelines for webcomics was to "prevent the multitude of new or unencyclopedic web comics from using Wikipedia as free promotion."  That fact seems to be missing from the current page, and casts a different light on the goals of such guidelines.  They are an attempt to prevent spamming of wikipedia, not an attempt to delete articles on grounds of inclusion standards. The goal of these guidelines is to prevent the abuse of wikipedia through the introduction of promotional links. Hiding  talk 23:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "But how are you defining "unencyclopedic"?", is the question to be asked. Some think that it's these guidelines which make something unencyclopedic, or vice versa. J•A•K 23:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not.  I'm pointing out that the intention was to prevent such strips using Wikipedia as a promotional tool, not to create standards for inclusion.  If a website is notable, the article will make the assertion, or such an assertion will be made during the afd.  If neither is forthcoming, there will be consensus to delete. However, it shouldn't be thought that guidelines can be extrapolated from such discussions and adhered to, since each afd is unique and individual.  One strip may be notable because of the influenec it has, whilst another, it's equal in every other respect, has no such influence and passes into the sands of time.  Van Gogh was nothing during his lifetime, and yet now is highly notable.  Think of the information that may be lost on today's art, simply because we cannot recognise the notability.  Therefore we should err on the side of caution, and allow each case to be debated and argued over individually, without recourse to imposed standards that allow robotic voting and disengagement with the subject. Hiding  talk 00:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Devil's advocate, Hiding. Would Van Gogh have deserved a wikipedia article in his lifetime, had it been around? [And I'd agree with you on the deleters vs. creators thing: except that AfD is a community thing.] J•A•K 00:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on your interpretation of Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field, part of Wikipedia:Notability (people), doesn't it?  I'd say his work with Gauguin would be enough.  Who knows what afd would have decided.  It doesn't matter either way, really though, does it.  It isn't important if we include these articles or not, what really is important, I am sure we can all agree, is that the articles we do include are well written, present information of use to a potential reader and are verified, sourced, neutral and not original research.  The rest can be sorted out at afd. Hiding  talk 01:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your points, Hiding. I think mentioning in the guidelines that preventing self-promotion is the main goal would be a good idea. The Greeneyes debate, for example, certainly pointed out the fact that the article was not self-promotion and was kept on the basis of it being a) a good article and b) being notable. (Admittedly, I had a role in that.) Maybe rewriting the guidelines from scratch and instead applying WP:NOT to webcomics might be better. A list of times when an AfD could be considered, as opposed to times when it shouldn't be considered, since AfD should only happen in rare and exceptional instances. Xuanwu 11:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  In regards to our goal of minimizing self promotion, please note that User:Xuanwu is the creator of Okashina_Okashi and is editing this proposed guideline to specifically mention how notable his or her own webcomic is . --Dragonfiend 15:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Webcomics Artist Collectives and Co-ops 

message: This entire "note" is extremely problematic. If "Alexa rankings over 10,000 may not be accurate," then why would we use Alexa rankings over 10,000 when looking at webcomics? Giving webcomics a special pass for having a higher Alexa ranking than other web sites is already problematic, but especially so if the higher rankings are innaccurate. There's also an unsourced note about "some [unnamed] websites and comics block it due to its association with spyware" -- isn't spyware blocking done primarily at the user level, not the web site level? Also, in regards to "Alexa can not be used as a basis for a valid AfD with webcomics on hiatus because of the inaccuracies in a comic's true ranking," Alexa has kept their data since they started, so you can see a website's ranking at any point since late 2001. This section ought to be removed as completely incorrect -- I'll be doing so unless some valid reasons for keeping can be given. Also, any valid warnings about Alexa are better suited for Alexa test. -- Dragonfiend 15:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alexa rankings over 10,000 may not be accurate," etc. 

message: The current webcomics guideline offers as one of it's options a ranking of 100,000 or better... Sorry, but I don;t think that cuts it. Amazon rankings over a certain number (don't remember the number offhand) are simply total guesstimates based upon the last time a copy sold. Simply selling one copy, just one, in the last month gets you well above `00,000. That's nowhere near notable enough by itself to be justification to be listed on Wikipedia. I don't know that we could even come up with a number that makes sense here the way Amazon lists slow-selling products, as it'd be quite difficult to be listed in the zone where they actually keep track of a real sales rank instead of an estimate and quite easy to get on the estimate list. 
And if this guideline is used elsewhere, for like normal books, please let me know so I can place the same comment there... I know people self-publishing books who haven't sold more than ten copies ever who are constantly listed with multiple titles above 100,000. Frankly, none of them deserve Wikipedia articles, so I can;t see that that's a good guide at all. DreamGuy 01:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Amazon ranking guideline is so extremely easy to pass that it's meaningless

message: I removed the following text because I wanted to discuss the consensus regarding it and also whether it was covered in other clauses:
:If a webcomic has played a role in setting an artistic trend within webcomics (such as Bob and George's role in popularizing sprite comics) or have had an impact in the real world (such as Okashina Okashi's use in Asia to teach children English), they should be included with evidence provided in the article. A webcomic created by a notable person can also be considered notable.
I would imagine that anything likely to meet the above criterion would more likely have been caught in the clause regarding coverage in the media.  Therefore I think it is unnecessary, and would like to see if there is consensus on whether to include this.  As to the specific examples included, I cannot source Okashina Okashi's use in Asia to teach children English outside of Wikipedia.  Anyone else? Hiding  talk 10:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. neither one of those examples establishes real notability, those are just unsupported claims. I agree that that should not be in there. DreamGuy 20:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also agree with Hiding and DreamGuy. -- Dragonfiend 20:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with Dragonfiend, Hiding, and DreamGuy.  We're a tertiary source, we don't determine ourselves what "set[s] an artistic trend" or "ha[s] had an impact", that would be WP:OR. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  However, surely if something like comixpedia states a comic has set a trend, a la Bob and George, we should be able to accept this as proof of notability?J•A•K 04:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is the best "source" I can come up with for B&G. Nifboy 04:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comixpedia is an unreliable source, especially for unverifiable judgment calls such as "setting a trend." -- Dragonfiend 18:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That link isn't Comixpedia, it's the Webcomics Examiner, which only puts out a handful of articles on a quarterly basis. Nifboy 21:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My remarks regarding the reliability of Comixpedia in regards to webcomics that "set trends" was in response to J•A•K's comment about "comixpedia states a comic has set a trend." Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm aware of where your link goes, Nifboy, and what the publishing schedule of the Examiner is. I've been reading it since the first issue. Anybody else here remember Graphic Novel Review? those were the days. -- Dragonfiend 02:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I said "something like Comixpedia". I wasn't sure what would be thought of this, but my point is now "what if a reputable source, such as TWE says that something set a trend?" Surely that would merit its inclusion? J•A•K 02:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still unclear as to why such sources are unreliable, especially when sourcing external opinion. Hiding  talk 10:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text removal from "Other" section 

message: I have no idea what it means, but Comixpedia now shows up in Google News searches. Nifboy 05:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. I think the views of the more established participants (that is, those of us who have been arguing since webcomics had their own page at WP:COMIC) are colored by the fact that one of the previously proposed criteria read as follows: "Being the subject of a major feature in Comixpedia, the Webcomics Examiner, or Websnark." Personally, I think making it inclusion criteria is bunk, but if TWE (and to a lesser extent Comixpedia) makes a statement of importance regarding a webcomic, it should at least be allowed as evidence. Nifboy 21:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before Comixpedia can make a statement of importance that we pay attention to, Comixpedia would have to be declared important, which it hasn't. You are making a circular argument here. Webcomics need to be held to be important by important sources before being listed here. DreamGuy 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to get Comixpedia listed here (for one, I don't know what purpose it would serve, or what kind of list it would be listed in, nor do I think Comixpedia is a better source). I'm just saying, my name is nifboy, and I trust this source for my own reasons. Nifboy 01:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: So you're happy with Comixpedia and TWC to be used as sources? Is TWC The Webcomics Examiner?  I apologise for not having been as involved in these discussion as others. Hiding  talk 21:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I meant TWE because I'm an idiot. It has been fixed. Nifboy 01:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know Comixpedia from Adam, but getting listed in Google News in no way indicates overall established usefulness as a source. I am a professional writer and use Google News reports to try to track the latest info on topics I cover, and I have been appalled at the quite often extremely low quality sources that show up as alleged "news sources" from Google News, e3specially within the last six months or so. It's frankly like anyone with a blog that's regularly updated can get in, and many of them are just press releases spit out and dutifully picked up as if they were news people would care about. We need a much more reasonable bar for what constitutes notability or authoritativeness than the fact that Google indexes it. DreamGuy 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A random observation

message: I dispute the use of Alexa's spyware to measure a site's notability.  All it does is show the number of incompetent people to visit the site, not the true total number of visitors.  Anyone with half a brain will take the basic steps to prevent Alexa from tracking them, such as using Firefox or another browser that doesn't have Internet Explorer's multiple security holes.  Rogue 9 16:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite an independant source for Alexa's "millions of tracked users"? Nifboy 22:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A brief search turned up the following regarding the number of Alexa users: "The navigation tool Alexa['s] ... 100,000 active users are pruning the data through their collective paths," according to The Village Voice on June 23, 1998. "Alexa ... compiles monthly rankings of top sites based on the aggregated, anonymous traffic of over a half-million Alexa users," according to The Korea Herald on April 10, 2000. "Alexa offers ... insight into what sites the more than 10 million Alexa users in the world visit," according to The Daily Record of Baltimore, MD on October 1, 2004. My original point was that the number of Alexa users exceeds the 1,000 or so used for a typical opinion poll. -- Dragonfiend 23:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Dragonfiend: those who don't want spyware aren't just paranoids, as you seem to imply. I'd say it more represents those who want privacy.J•A•K 00:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, here's where I get to fly my expert flag and talk about sampling.  First bear in mind that I provided this link initially.  Then have a look at the brief talk on Alexa at User talk:J•A•K.  In the end, the message is that while Alexa'a base is large (ignoring the aspersions cast on those it samples) for sparse populations (like webcomic veiwers when compared to all all web users) the projections are very very loose.  There is a reason that they don't publish the confidence interval for these rankings.  Anything over 50K is total horsefeathers, and means essentially the same as "no ranking". - brenneman(t)(c) 00:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're Alexa-bashing, I'd like to ask if anyone's worked out a way of finding the highest Alexa Rank a site has had, or just a specific past ranking? This is going to be crucial for this to work.  J•A•K 01:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Hey, bashing?  I cry foul... Alexa is very good for the bottom 1000, almost a dead cert.  But sadly, no.  Last I looked, the ranks went back for 3 years, but if I recall correctly only for something like ones currently in the to 50K.  Some way to trick the Google cache of an alexa page into spilling it's secrets, perhaps?  Or even, crazy thought, sending Alexa an email asking them? - brenneman(t)(c) 01:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: **OK, Ok. Actually, I just noticed Dragonfiend pointed a way some way up. Unfortunately, after exhaustive testing (my first random example), I found a problem. J•A•K 01:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: We should probably have some mention of the fact that Alexa is a biased sample here. Since we're showing off statistical terms :) J•A•K 01:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe we have our Alexa threshold set low enough that we're avoiding any real problems with sample size and margin of error. -- Dragonfiend 03:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With your average web page, sure.  But then you get to sites that tend to attract more tech-savvy people, who tend to seriously dislike spyware eating their system resources and/or use a more advanced browser than IE for the convenience aspects and pick up the Alexa blocking incidentally.  Any tech- or geek-oriented website is going to have a lower Alexa rating than the total number of visitors would normally trigger.  Rogue 9 03:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Plus, you're not actually going to have the average person care enough to download the toolbar. Thos who have the toolbar are those who try to improve their browser, but don't worry about privacy, or use non-IE browsers. Which I'd think would be a rather small, specialised-ish subset. J•A•K 03:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm on the record as disagreeing.  If I can make a fake website and get it to have an Alexa of under 100K will that convince anyone?  Wait, that would be amazing... I mean a real website, but with no real content, of course. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "Google test " page? Shome Mishtake shurely? J•A•K 04:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Google_test#Alexa_test I meant.  We can't put it on Alexa Internet because it's all WP:OR.  But if we use OR to convince ourselves of something that goes on a policy page, it's a grey area. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course. I'd forgotten that "Alexa Test" was in Google Test. (How many times can we link to the same article in this discussion?) J•A•K 04:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alexa rankings

message: I've just noticed this. The edit summary seems a bit misleading, which is why I didn't notice before. I'm going to re-instate the old thing about Alexa guidelines for webcomics, which had been there for quite a long time. I expect there's going to be discussion about this, but since that change seems rather over-WP:BOLD, and isn't discussed on the talk page, I think it's reasonable. I know we've just discussed lowering the minimum Alexa rank and I think there's a good case to be made for it. However, I don't favour chucking out a heap of webcomics articles which are perfectly good and notable, just because the tool isn't good enough. Your arguments, please, good people? J•A•K 12:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, yeah, I hadn't noticed that either until thirty minutes ago.  I'm just glad it wasn't me who did it or my arse would be back ing the wringer! - brenneman(t)(c) 13:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Huh. I'm all for WP:AGF, but I'm curious as to why Cryptic did it without mentioning it on this page. I'm so glad Snowspinner didn't notice: he'd be angry at me for letting the side down. At least we seem to have picked up on this before there was much unpleasantness. J•A•K 13:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see what happened. Aaron, you mentioned something about trying to merge the guidelines for webcomics and websites, Radiant removed the Alexa ranking mention on webcomics specifcally here because here the main webpage ranking was changed to 100,000, for no reason I can fathom by User:Revolución. Hmm... we should read the page we're arguing over more. "Webcomis" has been there a week. This is awkward. What do you say to a revert of earlier that day, as this seems a bit of a mess? J•A•K 13:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *You mean you vandalise policy pages so often you can't remember which vandalism is yours?! Outrageous! You ought to be hung at stake! ^_^ J•A•K 13:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmmm... webcomic Alexa 100,000