Talk:Webcomic/Archive 1

message: Does anybody have ideas on how we can expands this very lacking section which is history?? And Doctor Fun is a webcomic that I never ever heard of, so I am questioning it popularity status. --Kiba 23:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Doctor Fun is generally acknowledged as the first webcomic, so it definitely deserves a mention. As far as history goes, some mention should probably be made of Big Panda, which AIUI was the first dedicated webcomic hosting service, from the ashes of which Keenspot emerged. The standard navigation links and the calendar feature that Keenspot shares with Sluggy (also ex-BP) were BP innovations. I'm not really the one to write that up, though, as by the time I started reading webcomic Keenspot existed and BP had been reduced to an idiosyncratic top sites list—all I know about that stage comes from secondhand hearsay. The founding of Modern Tales might warrant a mention.  — Gwalla | Talk 01:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where you get these info? I am going to look for webcomics history articles around the net. I think I will add some infomation around Saturady or Sunday. --Kiba 01:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mostly from forum discussions.  — Gwalla | Talk 04:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Hey, I noticed there was an incomplete sentence so I tried to re-edit it to reflect what the original intentions were. But I don't like the vagueness of which comic is actually the first. So whomever has a better idea of what's accurate, please edit it with dates. Perhaps knowing the exact date each comic was first published would help to settle the problem. --kainee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.145.112 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I think what that edit is trying to say is that Where the Buffalos Roam is the first webcomic that was not originally a print comic (since Doctor Fun started in a college paper). It seems to be splitting hairs, though, since it didn't start on the Web either.  — Gwalla | Talk 21:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, I think the line that causes so much controversy is partly my fault as the original line was a sentence fragment so I re-edited to what I thought was the original intention. Maybe I should have deleted it? Or perhaps the question of which was the first webcomic should be stated in the entry itself? If anyone knows dates and can provide them, that would probably help to clear things up...--kainee 129.21.190.25 22:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

text: My understanding of it is, B&G is the first sprite comic anyone ever gave a damn about. It is also the second most popular, the first being 8-bit Theatre, with a very large gap between second and third, which I think is Secret of Mana Theater, though it's flash animations and not really comics in any traditional sense. NMC is the typical low-quality trash associated with sprite comics, and the only reason VfD hasn't put it on the chopping block is because its only claim to fame is being the "first". Nifboy 01:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Where the Buffalo Roam" is listed as the first "online comic", but it was predated by Joe Ekaitis' "T.H.E. Fox" on QuantumLink, in the late 1980s, where it was advertised as the first online comic. I'd have to contact Joe to find out exactly when it started, and whether it was also distributed on the Internet before WTBR. If not, then WTBR may be the first "Internet comic" instead. --Gentaur 15:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like great historical info, Gentaur! I found this outside verifiable source , an interview in which Joe Ekaitis confirms "[I've been cartooning] Since 1986, because that was when I hunkered down and poured what little I have into T.H.E. Fox. It was originally uploaded to CompuServe, then Q-Link and finally, GEnie." On, a related note, considering how much debate there is over which comic was first, and how earlier and earlier ones keep cropping up, I think we ought to list "T.H.E. Fox" as "perhaps the first" or some such. I think with all of these early comics (Dr. Fun, T.H.E. Fox, etc.) their start dates may be verifiable but whether they were "first" really isn't -- it's not verifiable that there wasn't someone else somehwhere in some corner of the internet posting comics earlier. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some ARPANET comic from the 70s or something. Dragonfiend 18:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History expansion ideas

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

message: Okay, here's my feelings on this section: It's exceedingly long and full of red links. Many of the blue links on artists are redirects to their comic. I have notability concerns; sure, many of the comics listed are popular, but are they (or their artists) truly notable? Never mind the hordes of fans/creators who want to put up non-notable comics (forty of the past fifty edits on this one section alone, with, what, six or seven reverts?).
Really, any comic that is truly notable is already in the article proper. The rest can stay at List of web comics. Nifboy 2 July 2005 06:23 (UTC)
: No, in fact there are many notable web comic artists which are still missing from both the article proper and the list. They have been featured in reviews of Web comics and/or interviewed in Web publications that deal with Web comics. The alphabetical list of authors has a double purpose: Giving alphabetical access, which makes it easy to check who is missing, fast, and what work needs to be done on them (such as googling them to see if they are notable, and preparing individual articles on them and/or their comics)and making a cross referecne to their comics, which may or may not be mentioned with them in the article. --AlainV 4 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)
:: I think we have widely differing opinions on what counts as "notable," in the context of this page. I see the list as it currently is as, effectively, List of popular webcomics with a few actually notable exceptions (all of whom are in the article proper). Again, List of web comics lists all webcomics (and their artists) that have articles (and are, ergo, notable enough to have an article).
:: I still maintain, as well, that attempting to maintain such a list (meaning reverting the daily vanity) is not worth the benefit (if any) that the list provides. Nifboy 4 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)
::: I agree on the part to maintain the list will mean reverting the daily vanity. If we maintain popluar webcomic list, it will get longer and longer and longer. --Kiba 4 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)
::: The notable artist section should be removed. Many of the artists on the list are not notable, those on the list that actually are notable are already mentioned in the article making the list redudndant, and there are notable artists who are not on the list that I'd add but that would only be contributing to the problem. Any objections to me deleting the list? Dragonfiend 01:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Removed the list. If we dearly need this list (which we don't), I would highly reccomend giving reasons why those artists are notable as opposed to merely asserting that they are. Nifboy 00:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Notable Artists" section

message: I've attempted to clean up what was formerly the "Industry" section. I changed the section to "Business" since "Industry" has more to do with the manufacturing of goods, where as "Business" seems to more accurately reflect the content of the section (how artists are making money). There are still a few problems with this section that I couldn't think of a good way to fix right away. In the first paragraph there seems to be some confusion between sites that offer hosting to artists for a fee (Keenprime?) and sites that offer subscriptions to readers for a fee (Modern Tales?) but I'm not familiar enough how either site works to clear this up. I also removed a paragraph about webcomics in newspapers because it was very imprecise ("recently ... it is assumed..."), only focused on one comic rather than webcomics as a whole, and contradicted waht was in the PVP article. I think a better paragraph about webcomics that have crossed over to newspapers and vice versa is probably needed. Dragonfiend 19:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there needs to be a mention of Penny Arcade in here, who, among others, are some of the best known "professional" webcomic artists. Not only are they incredibly successful, they have their own charity drive and convention.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.85.77 (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business 

message: The section about comic layouts looks dubious. It makes the claim that Real Life was the first one to use 2x2, and a simple check of the starting days of it and PvP was enough to call bullshit on that. I have to wonder about the other facts presented. --Kizor 11:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Attributing Real Life as the first 2x2 comic comes from David Anez (author of Bob and George), who said that Real Life was the first and that it inspired him to pick the same format for his hand drawn comic. If you find facts to the contrary, edit rather than delete. Xuanwu 08:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have removed User:Xuanwu's recent edits that promote his own comic. Please see WP:VANITY. -- Dragonfiend 15:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please note that I've linked OO before I became involved with it. OO as an example of a comic that still uses 2x2 and does so for the same reasons as MT is true, vanity or not. Please evaluate edits based on their truth rather than simply saying "Vanity!" Had I linked to something like Tsunami Channel (which I was also involved in but does not use 2x2), then your deletion would have been warranted. Xuanwu 01:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have reverted User:Xuanwu's most recent vanity edits to this page. Per WP:VANITY: "Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author ..." User:Xuanwu has inserted references to his own webcomic in the articles on Neon Genesis Evangelion, Webcomic, Webcomic again, WP:WEB,  Voltron and probably others. Xuanwu, please stop spamming wikipedia with links to your comic. WP:NOT a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. If you want to give examples of comics that use a certain format, give examples other than your own webcomic. -- Dragonfiend 02:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  ah, here's an example —Tamfang 07:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Formats" accuracy 

message: I don't think a Wikipedia article should be without some sort of criticisms section, although obvious excpetions apply. I particularlly believe that the webcomic section should have one. However, I'm no wikipedian regular, so I don't know how to start it, where to go with it, or how to make it NPOV. Maybe someone else could?
Basically what criticisms I have of webcomics are as follows. While I do conceed that the internet is a great place to get one's own comic out that otherwise would be ignored by big publishers and the syndicates, it does also provide a breeding ground for generic, "cookie cutter" type web comics. For example, visiting www.onlinecomic.net will reveal that the most popular webcomics listed there are all that of "anime/manga" styles. A lot of the more popular webcomics themselves (PvP, Penny Arcade, MacHall, megatokyo) also share distinct similarities, particulally gaming references or use of the aformentioned anime/manga style. Very little variety seem to exist, and from my point of view, it appears as if many web comic creators are more tempted into doing stuff that'll make them popular and less about trying something new or creative. Therefore, it only helps breed more similarity and less originality. Similarlly, as there are a lot of web comics out there, quality of the story and artwork becomes an issue. The idea that "anyone can do a webcomic" serves as both a good and bad thing about webcomics.
I'm sure other criticisms for webcomics out there, but these are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head. Hopefully it's enough to get a criticism section in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.183.48 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as your criticism section follows the Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies, go for it. However, what you've outlined above seems to your personal criticisms, and that would probably be inappropriate. If you could summarise published common criticisms of webcomics that have appeared in reliable sources, that would be appropriate. For the record, I don't think your opinion that there isn't much variety in webcomics is very accurate. Other than that they are all webcomics, there aren't many similarities between Megatokyo, Narbonic, When I am King, Nowehere Girl, Fetus-X, Get Your War On, and Chasing Rainbows, for example. -- Dragonfiend 00:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Yes, Dragonfiend nailed it. Criticism sections are difficult because people confuse them for free-for-all POV zones. I don't think there's any validity to the claim that webcomics are cookiecutter, either. The medium allows for much more flexibility. Sure, the imitators outnumber the innovators, but that's true for everything. If you have any doubt, take a look at the list of webcomics. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Sources (of criticism):  and  VTNC 05:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: Three times in the last three days I have removed the following paragraph from this article: "Recently, a wikisite devoted to drinks based on webcomics, called I'm Just Drinking, has come to the attention of several webcomic authors. Most have been very receptive of the idea, Randy Milholland of Something Positive created a comic commenting on the drink for his comic, and those without a drink, such as Starline Hodge of Candi, have asked fans to create drinks for their webcomics." There are no reliable sources to support the idea that this exceedingly trivial less-than-week-old fan site belongs in this article on the broad topic of webcomics. -- Dragonfiend 02:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where you're getting the idea it's not sourced, and it obviously not trivial if someone like R. K. Milholland made a comic commenting about it. It's been placed in the community section and noted that it's new, as it sould be. Nobody else seems to have a problem with it, so unless you have some other reason for why this shouldn't be included, I don't see your arguement. And if you feel it lack sources, add them! Not that hard a thing to do. JQF 02:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say "it's not sourced," I said "There are no reliable sources." See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information on what a reliable source is. For example, "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources." As far as your advice to add reliable sources if I feel thay are lacking, 1) The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain (not the editors removing edits without reliable sources) and 2) I can't really add reliable sources if none exist. -- Dragonfiend 03:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of info on non-notable "recent" site with no reliable sources 

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

message: This contains mostly unsourced information. I'm particulary worried that it seems full of wikipedia editors' pet theories. Please help make sure information can be verified reliable third-party sources. There should be plenty of these between all the newspaper and magazine articles and books on webcomics. Thsi should be one of our best webcomics article. Dragonfiend 07:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved my previous comment down here; I've since learned proper etiquette dictates comments going to the bottom of a talk page. Those above comments still stand, BTW. I recently removed a link to a site named "Rumblo" that was under the Collectives section, as it was a link to a personal site for a single individual who happened to draw multiple comics (a single entity does not a collective make). I left the Paperdemon link; however, I don't know if I should have, this reeks of linkspam. Seemed awfully NN to me. Especially since there's a post above begging for a mention on the page (saying that they are unique for their free webcomic hosting... I can think of two other free hosters right away). And yet, I'm erring on the side of inclusion on this one. We'll see how I feel about it in the morning, though. -- Antepenultimate 03:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: I removed this recently added passage:
:Digital web comics are increasingly also been adapted for viewing via mobile/cell phones mobile comic, supported by the ongoing technological development and sophisitcation (multi-media and big screen) of handsets. One company focused on exploiting this is ComiAsia.com.
This user's contributions have been nothing but adding links to ComiAsia in various ways to various pages. The "mobile comic" article is highly suspect as well. Were this not blatant linkspam, this passage would still merit removal: I'd hardly say that the ability to view a webcomic on a mobile phone is a) unique to webcomics or b) a defining feature of webcomics. -- Antepenultimate 16:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspam 

message: I used to read and collect paper comics like Watchmen, Swamp Thing, Hellblazer, Cerebus and Sandman (Vertigo). I'd quite like to be entertained by a webcomic or two. Can anyone recommend any I may be interested in given my previous favourites? The ones I've looked at so far fall into the "3 or 4 panel gag" format. I'd quite like something that is, yes, funny in parts - but doesn't feel the need to make me laugh all the time, or even primarily.
Is there anything more adult and more like a graphic novel (episodic over a few pages rather than over a few panels? --bodnotbod 03:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Webcomic recommendation, please

message: I suggest we take the time to check the use of the words "web comic" and "online comic". I think it's important due to the level of controversy generated by using both of them as synonyms. "Online comic" by itself refers to every comic available online and "Web comic" refers to every comic available in the web. A propper use of both words could lead us to consider every Web comic as an Online comic, but not every Online comic should be considered a Web comic.
I haven´t taken any action yet. Because it would be a very significant change, but some actions would include the clean-up of this article, the making of a new article named "Online comic" which wouldn´t redirect to this anymore, and linking both of them leaving "Web comic" as a subcategorie to "Online comic" Arounova 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have sources saying this is an important distinction? -- Dragonfiend 04:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a reasonable claim IMO due to the fact that an "online comic" can refer to the availability of a print comic being published on line, For Better or for Worse (fbofw.com) could be considered an example of this. I think the concept of a "webcomic" usually implies that the internet is in fact the method of distribution as opposed to being published on paper and then made available electronically. Perhaps "Online Comic" could refer to all types of comics that are available on line, but "web comic" referring to comics that are exclusively available on the internet. Though this would create a new category for comics that have bridged the gap, possibly. --RWilliamKing 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concepts 

message: From attempting to read the History section, it has been apparently clear that it has become increasingly garbled. It is difficult to understand, with several months being mentioned in the same year (August of 2000 is listed twice). Some of the events as well are irrelevant to the history of webcomics, and need to be removed. Also, some of these dates should be simply merged. One does not simply need to list all 12 months of a year and define what happened in this months. It is much cleaner to simply state "in 2000...." and reference RELEVANT information on the history or webcomics. 68.41.85.77 09:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving appart the relevance issue of those dates, it apparently would do better if all of those facts were listed in a chronological table by year and by month. Though It'd be the best if the section received a more descriptive treatment than the current Date-event one.  In fact I've seen an evolution in webcomics, which have been through some stages or "Ages", a "prehistoric" stage between 1985-1993, a formative one through 1993-1999, a "golden age" (1999-2001), an expansion stage (2001-2004) and a  decay stage (2005 onwards). The former being a propposal I came with last year based on factors like the rise and fall of communities, artwork quality, spread of internet and number of webcomics. But I can´t post it in the main article (or any) because it is original research.  Arounova 01:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History Revisit

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

message: Sources (of criticism):  and  VTNC 05:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: I would like to remove the link to :wikinews:Wikimedia fundraiser highlights webcomic community's frustration with Wikipedia guidelines from the top of this article. Per Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Wikinews and WP:CONTEXT, Wikinews should only be linked when we are discussing the event that Wikinews also discusses. We should not be linking to every single news article tangentially related to webcomics. This article does not discuss the Wikimedia fundraiser issue at all, so we should not be including the link to a news article that discusses that issue, and especially not at the very top of the article. The fact that the news article is from Wikinews is irrelevant; we are here to make an encyclopedia, not to promote Wikinews. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Third opinion: Hey. I just saw this page listed on WP:3O, and I was wondering why it was listed there. There hasn't been any conversation or any debate. It seems like David Shankbone reverted your edits. Perhaps you should make a post on his talk page and discuss the issue with him directly. Neither of the articles you linked to actually mention Wikinews protocols. I'll admit that the link at the top is a little strange, but I don't really know enough of the rules on Wikinews links. Anyway, I would say engage him directly and let him know that you want to discuss the issue on here. If there is a discussion and you want a third opinion, leave another note on the 3O page and we'll help. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Avoid self-references is another guideline worth reading. Anyway, this article is about webcomics themselves, not webcomics in relation to Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. That issue is not so much as mentioned in this article. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gah. Pet peeve of mine. Avoiding self-reference is a style guideline, not a linkage or inclusion guideline. That's why we can have articles like Jimbo Wales and Wikipedia. ASR is for things like "A webpage, such as this one" or a "A wiki, like the one you are reading now". Read the guideline. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was mainly that the link was given such prominence in the article, being one of the first things that readers see. Just because a Wikinews article talks about Wikipedia doesn't mean that it should get that kind of prominence on Wikipedia. To me, giving it that kind of prominence violates a good deal of policies. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's possible, but ARS isn't one of them. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We aren't self-referencing Wikipedia, we are referencing the work of another project.  That's not an argument for removing a news link that discusses the concerns of the community about which this article is written.  That is very relevant.  Additionally, the article discusses such issues as self-publication and notability.  It's hard to see your point here.  --David Shankbone 18:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but this article does not discuss the Wikimedia issue at all. This might be because that issue is not notable. Why are we including a link to a Wikinews article that discusses a non-notable topic? —Remember the dot (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me understand this: you don't want the article in period, so you are arguing that because that some in the Wikimedia foundation approached Webcomics about fundraising, and they found dissatisfaction in that community, and an article was written about that dissatisfaction and was mentioned in the title, that it shouldn't be included?  The article isn't about the Wikimedia fundraiser, and if it was, that would make it less relevant to the article.  The article is about efforts to fundraise being met with dissatisfaction with Wikipedia by Webcomics, which makes it relevant to...the Wikipedia article about Webcomics.  Again, I find your arguments not making a whole lot of sense. Especially your last line of "unnotable topic" - if Webcomics are unnotable, should we delete this article? --David Shankbone 19:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is not my position. I have no opinion on whether or not the webcomic community has been wronged. I object to the inclusion of non-notable material in Wikipedia. Webcomics are notable. Webcomics and Wikimedia is not. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to mention something in the middle here, generally (as in what i do, and what some other wikinewsies do, but not all people do, and I don't know what official policy is/it doesn't exist) links to wikinews are at the top of the page, if they are extremely related to topic (aka an article on wikipedia about an incident, and a wikinews article about incident). If a section of article is on the same topic as the wikinews article then we usually put the link in that section. If say the article is about a person, and the wikinews article is about something that happened to that person (but the wikipedia article is really only about that person, not the event), then the link is generally the see also section. Links with  and  are also in see also. However that is just the very general how its practiced currently. There are no set rules (I'm aware of). Bawolff (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I took a quick look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Wikinews to see how it was used elsewhere, and only see it either in a relevant section (Hunter S. Thompson#Death) or at the bottom in the see-also section (Animation#See also). Since I doubt the event is hardly a major-enough event in the history of webcomics to warrant its own section, I recommend the latter option. Nifboy (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I never had a problem with moving the link - but User:Remember the dot was simply deleting it, not moving it.  It's not even a story I wrote on Wikinews, but it sure did garner a lot of reaction from Webcomics, and is the most read story on Wikinews.  It was blogged about and reported upon.  --David Shankbone 13:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're OK with moving it to the "See also" section, then that would be fine. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me.  --David Shankbone 20:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to irrelevant Wikinews article 

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

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

message: Doesn't "toon" usually refer to animation?  I was expecting when I typed "webtoon" into the search, to find an article related to animation created to showcase on the internet, perhaps Flash animation.  Indeed, that article defines the term "webtoon" as animation. B7T (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a separate entry in at Webtoon now. I've added it to "See also" on the Webcomic page. The Webtoon page will need some serious cites if it is to survive, however. -- Yamara 23:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "Webtoon" redirect here? 

message: It's not a webcomic as far as I know.  Did I miss something?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.216.236 (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is American Born Chinese referenced here? 

message: thesaj
We have articles on "Web Pages in Print". We also have traditionally print comics that are making strong waves online (ie: Dilbert).
We are headed toward more and more convergence.  What if a traditionally web-based comic starts appearing in national syndication. Let's say Penny Arcade finds itself in newspapers across the country several years from now.  Do we continue listing it as a web comic? Do we base it on circulation numbers (whichever is higher print or web)? What if a print comic moves to be a predominantly web based comic with higher web circulation?
Or is it all about the birth of the comic? While very few print comics were birthed online, that was mainly because the internet did not exist at their births.  I'd wager most new print comics by new comic artists spent some time online somewhere.
If we do not establish guidelines for these situations and merely act on them subjectively we will find the webcomic page mired in further controversy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSaj (talk • contribs) 17:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see what the controversy would be.  There are several comics that have been published in print form and, as far as I know, there have been no problems with them.  Take PvP, for instance.  This is a webcomic that has a monthly syndication, but no one is trying to argue that it is not a webcomic.  I think it will be obvious when a webcomic is a webcomic and when it is not. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to define Print versus Webcomic 

message: Should there be a section talking about the types of comic? Like those one-time funny strips, versus story lines, weekly comics, etc? Also what about the medium used. There's 2D comics, there's a lot of new 3D comics too, then there's manga, etc. Maybe new articles would be better for each type.. Elfguy (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type of comic? Medium used? 

message: The amount of namedropping in this article is awful. It looks like every fan has tried to somehow mention his favorite webcomic anywhere. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Namedropping