Talk:Lists of webcomics

message: 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)
replies: text: You can only add a comic to this page if it already has a Wikipedia article that displays noteworthiness. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I ask, what counts as noteworthy, enough to have a mention and an article? --Fugabutacus (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTE is our general notability guideline, and links to more specific guidelines for all kinds of content (WP:WEB may be of interest). In general, alltopics (like a webcomic) should have been discussed at length in multiple reliable independent sources, not in blogs, fora, or most webzines. Fram (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Can I add this?

message: Oldest known web comic still running: Kevin and Kell details at List of web comics#K
*Actually, it's Doctor Fun... since 1993 and still going; it was the very first comic on the web. (And my favorite, incidentally.) Mindspillage 18:15, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: List of comics to track down:
* Livingingreytown by Dave Kelly 2000 January 10-2002 January 12 ( http://www.livingingreytown.com/d/20000110.html ) hosted on keenspot, characters included the Devil Phil. Site has inconsistent dates on links and image URLs.
* When I am King by demian.5 ( http://www.demian5.com/ ) a graphic novel in 5 chapters, no text, semi-animated in 64 panels. Needs frames.
Wikibob 00:40, 2004 Mar 4
: "When I am King" should definitely have its own page :-) Peter S. 13:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Needed

message: So, do we have an agreement about the inclusion guidelines, or what? -- Cyrius 03:46, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
:I'm fine with it.  This should probably be extended into a separate article in the Wikipedia: namespace (like, for now Wikipedia:Web comics) so that the rules also apply to the creation of articles (as webcomics come up a lot on VfD).  RADICALBENDER★ 22:51, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I think I'll just do it myself. :)  RADICALBENDER★ 22:54, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  List restrictions 

message: 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)
replies: text: It seems to be generally believed that this list should only contain comics that already have Wikipedia articles about them -- if you feel the comic deserves an article (which it probably does) then by all means write one about it! And *then* add it to the list. :-) Aris Katsaris 13:48, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Aris. A wikipage for Pcweenies has now been created. Kms007 15:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: It is titled "The PC Weenies" on the actual comics. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:18, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "The PC Weenies". Sorry about that. Should I change the wikipedia entry to reflect that? Kms007 21:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected it. Aris Katsaris 21:26, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toon inclusion query 

message: 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 agree. It's gone. Gamaliel  01:45, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  sham wikipedia articles 

message: I want to add White Ninja comic but I don't know the date it started.
Fr3d 17:34, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't know the start date, I don't see why you can't add it as long as there's a wikipedia article about that comic. Gamaliel  17:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Ninja 

message: 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)
replies: text: Comment Not all word are in the dictionary. Why is it "Unecessary neologism"? Beside, webcomic have more common useage.--Kiba 22:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your comments with ~~~~. --Fibonacci 22:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Comment Wiki policy says Use common names. "Webcomic" gives five times the Google pages "web comic" does, and if you type in web comic (no quotes) Google asks if you meant webcomic. Nifboy 17:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: 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)
thread_title:  user 71.243.144.215  

message: 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:
* Far too many comics have vague starting or finishing dates (or none at all, in the cases of John and John, Rehabilitating Mr. Wiggles, Reman Mythology, Rockwood (if it survives AfD, which as of this post appears unlikely), and Sev Wide Web). If possible, these should be tracked down.
** When putting down the starting date for Sev Wide Web, I put the date of the first archived Pits comic. Admiral Memo 03:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems to fix 

message: 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)
thread_title:  About the Pending Deletions... 

message: Well, I just spent the last 20 hours hunting down and pouring over orphaned webcomic articles and linking them up here.  I've added  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)
thread_title:  Lots of orphaned articles added today 

message: 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)
thread_title:  End dates 

message: 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)
:I concur, and intend removing the external links from this list, subject to any substantial opposition. -- Linkspamremover 13:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should keep the link to Comixpedia's list, but that's probably the only one we need. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't referring to the external links section, but rather the external links at the end of each entry. Nifboy 16:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: (Moved to the bottom for visibility.) I reverted it.  Sorry, but I didn't mind the links and I very much do not like keeping them in as comments.  I'm not entirely averse to dispensing with the links for each article, but we're going to have to give it more discussion than this.  Responding to a comment from last July halfway up the page simply isn't enough.   –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you might like to keep them as a reference for building the articles (I'm not going to check each article to see if the link has been accurately placed there). I can remove them completely in a jiffy. I understood there to be consensus that the list needed the links to disappear, and from a spam perspective they are much better gone. If you are happier with the links visible than not, I wonder if we understood each other at all. I can remove the links completely, but you will now have to be explicit. rgds. -- Linkspamremover 07:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *I have asked for additional input from the participants of Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics.  I understand the desire to purge the list of its external links.  There are a lot of them, which presents great potential for spam and 404s.  However, this particular list is aggressively manicured.  There are a number of dead links now, but for the most part we're aware of them and we know why they're currently offline.  –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Keeping the links in comments is right out.  What purpose would that serve?  As to keeping all the links here, I'm ambivalent.  Everything should have an article we say, but what if it has a redirect?  Do we keep a link here even if there isn't one in the parent article?  In general I'd prefer not to have links in more than one place, but am as-yet unswayed by arguments from either camp.  brenneman{L}  12:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Removing the external links weakens the "more useful than a category" argument against deletion (see Vfd, Afd). Bo Lindbergh 12:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Bo. Perhaps we could just bracket them to the numbered format to save room? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: 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) .
* Yes, that's reasonable.  In the case of Li'l Mell and Sergio, I'd include also Farago since he's the current artist.  Since he's her husband he probably has better long term prospects than the previous ones, too!  In general we should stick to current or at least recent contributors. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship 

message: 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)
thread_title:  HTML entity &amp;ndash; vs. Unicode – 

message: *The Webcomic List 
*The Belfry Webcomics Index
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)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The |importance=no is not necessary on the .  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)
thread_title:  {{tl|webcomicsproj}} 

message: 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)
replies: text: I suggest that each person interested in such a project start at the alphabetic place for their own name and work downward; e.g. my name is Anton Sherwood, so I'll start with Shifters.  (Not right now 'cos it's past my bedtime.)  Assuming that the distribution of titles is not much different from that of surnames, that way we'd divide up the list fairly evenly among the volunteers without needing any coordination.  (But list here what you've checked.)  —Tamfang 06:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checking 

message: 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. - Hahnchen 01:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it pains me deeply to say it, I must agree.  If I'm to suggest others follow fair use where they want, so to for the pages I like.  Since their fair use status is in question, I'm going to remove them all while it is discussed. - brenneman {L} 02:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: * Can anyone find some totally free images? If for example an artist relaeased one frame into the wild, we could use it here. brenneman {L} 02:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were some free-use images on the page, like :Image:Mcninja.jpg and :Image:Salo-kosmose.JPG.  I was planning on a gradual rid of the fair use images and replacing them with free use ones.  But didn't remove them all, in case I'm further branded a member of the Spanish webcomic inquisition even though the fair use policies don't allow for their use here.  I'm actually quite a fan of :Image:Salo-kosmose.JPG, it's free use, and can't be used as advertising like pretty much the entire page is, because its in Russian :) - Hahnchen 04:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: * Whoa.  I seem to have ingested some stupid pills with my baked beans.  Apologies.  I'll check the images' status-es-es and restore any that aren't fair use.  Sorry for being too keen. - brenneman {L} 05:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just leave them for the time being, it seems OK now, and as I said before it wrecks 56k and they act like billboards anyway.  I wouldn't be against a smattering of free use ones though. - Hahnchen 05:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the free use images and added some others. Also, I believe all Cat and Girl comics are released under Creative Commons. -- Dragonfiend 23:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm alright with that too.  But I'm not too sure on the some images, like the one for Scary go Round.  We've already got an image for the S section, and it looks a bit out of place there.  I'm also not a fan of the Questionable Content image.  It's too long and breaks up the HR lines which split the list up.  (Viewing text size normal on Firefox) - Hahnchen 04:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Although the QC strip does have both Mogwai and Mercury Rev references in its favour. - Hahnchen 04:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also not completely happy with the way the Questionable Content and Scary Go Round images fit into the page, and I also think the horizontal Maakies strip looks tiny when scaled down to thumbnail width. I guess the lesson here is that square-shaped comics fit the best. Maybe cutting those images down to one or two panels would help? -- Dragonfiend 05:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Images 

message: 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)
replies: text: Why would someone go to 21st Century Fox if not looking for the webcomic?  If some other notable entity adopts that name, then we'll disambiguate the article titles.  Meanwhile, if it bothers you, add a disambiguation line to the top of 21st Century Fox reminding people that the movie studio's name is 20th not 21st.  —Tamfang 19:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article names 

message: why not?
:Because we don't link to deleted articles. Bo Lindbergh 06:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has an article now--Nimrod1234 22:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyanide and Happiness 

message: 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)
thread_title:  longevity 

message: Watch out for links to pages that have the same title as a webcomic but aren't actually about that comic.Examples:
* Chicken Wings is a disambiguation page.
* Get Medieval is about a computer game.
Bo Lindbergh 22:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've seen that one happen as well - someone thought the webcomic "Draw" would be represented well enough by using the Wiki article on the word "Draw", which obviously has nothing to do with said comic. Heh. H Hog 12:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False positives 

message: 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)
thread_title: M

message: 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)
replies: text: Great idea.  —Tamfang 20:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a good idea to create an alphabetical version as well. Chronological order is useless if you're looking for a particular comic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.238.175.38 (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently the lists in alphabetical order are being proposed for deletion in favour of categories; it's a bit better if the list contains more informations, and this one is good in that respect, but you could browse :Category:Webcomics if you wanted an alphabetically ordered list. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 12:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that not all comics will be on that main category page. A fair chunk of them will be in the subcategories, and it's not necessarily obvious where any one comic would be. You mention that it's currently being proposed for deletion. Is there any way to halt that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.238.175.38 (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This one has survived the process twice, as you can see at the top of the page; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anime has been less lucky, and it was repeatedly created and deleted. It's not like it's something you can stop, it's a natural consequence of the constantly growing number of works: the list has to be something different than a simple alphabetically sorted directory, or it ends up being the same as a category, or worse than it, because a category is automatically updated while a list isn't. So that's why this trend has emerged, and a lot of lists have been (and are being, quite often) proposed for deletion. I know that browsing a category and browsing an article are different things, but while the article you're looking for is (almost) sure to show up in the category or using the search function, it isn't at all sure you'll find it here (e.g. if nobody thought to list it here). --Εξαίρετος (msg) 16:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Category:Webcomics is supposed to be subdivided - making it useless for exactly the alphabetized listing that we used to have here.  The chronological order does not seem to have improved usablility in this case.  Wyvern 02:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronological order? 

message: 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)
replies: text: There's that, or the quick CTRL-F (apple-F) search function in your browser, typing "garas" will take you right to it. MURGH disc. 09:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Alphabetical order isn't much help if one can't remember whether it's Chronicles of Garas or Tales of Garas or Garas: The Saga.  —Tamfang 17:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Order of All the Webcomics 

message: 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)
replies: text: No problem for Zap! Regarding Sore Thumbs see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sore Thumbs; if you think you can start a decent article, stating clearly the reasons for its notability, accordingly to WP:WEB, just create it. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 13:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, did not notice that.  And no, I don't think I can make it myself, so I'll leave it be. Zerris 19:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To follow up with a warning: I did compile the sources to make a Sore Thumbs stub but it turns out that articles on the subject instantly gets speedy deleted following that AFD, so "just creating it" isn't all there's to it. Murghdisc. 17:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not on the list? 

message: Has an article but isn't in the list.
80.44.140.156 16:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then add it :p --Garfunkle20 14:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  XKCD 

message: 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)
replies: text: Basically only webcomics that can be proved to exist in mediums OTHER THAN online, will ever be accepted to the Wikipedia list.. well usually. Webcomics with articles or reviews on what Wikipedia deems as reputable sites may help. Newspaper or other print medium with mention or coverage of a webcomic also helps.... at least this is my understanding. --Fesworks 17:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the criteria are tighter than necessary, but we gotta restrict it somehow; there are thousands of titles and the Web doesn't need another exhaustive list.  —Tamfang 05:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I was not expecting such a speedy response, lol I must normally hang out in dead areas of Wiki. But anyways, hmmm I see, thats interesting to know and it explains how such a list is so limited felinoel 07:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why so few? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Minor Asthetic Edits 

message: 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)
thread_title: Images for each year

message: 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)
replies: text: I also see you are making it so the web addresses are not visible. I'm not sure this is a good idea. I think it's useful to be able to scroll down the list and see whether comics are hosted on their own sites or on something like blogspot or Zuda. --Dragonfiend (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that it is especially important to be able to know where the comic is hosted.  If they really wanted to know, they could just scroll over the link and see where it goes.  However, that does give me an interesting idea.  List of webcomics hosted on Blogspot, List of webcomics hosted on Keenspot, List of webcomics hosted on Zuda, etc. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current comics 

message: 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)
replies: text: Personally, I have never heard of either Misfile or Chris Hazelton.  However, if you think that both of these are notable enough, go ahead and make an article.  After that, it may be added to this list. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ya know, the webcomic world is wide enough that one can't expect to know everything. —Tamfang (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: But please check first WP:NOTE, WP:WEB and perhaps WP:FICTION to see what we expect in our articles. If there are no indepth reliable independent sources about the comic and the author, the articles will probably be deleted. Fram (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misfile 

message: 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)
thread_title:  darken 

message: Submitting Also, Bagels for consideration. Obviously it has it's own page as well as an independent site  (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)
replies: text: Where it's hosted doesn't matter whatsoever. What Wikipedia is concerned about is this: Two DIFFERENT, reputable sources that speak of the webcomic... such as two different newspapers, or a mention on some reputable news site, or some other major online website that already has a page (I think, but iffy) that talks about said comic, and not merely mentioning it... But yea, where it is hosted means nothing. --Fesworks (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also, Bagels 

message: 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.
* All webcomics listed here are notable, not "minor." (If they were minor they would not have articles and would be removed from the list.) The deletion of appropriate content from an article is considered vandalism, though since you are a new user I did not make an assumption of bad faith. It's appropriate for the list to contain images that have been released to the proper license, and 2 of the images you deleted have that. Please do not remove those images without consensus. Thank you. Dragoneer (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Accusations of vandalism should not be made here. They are counter to our Wikipedia:Vandalism policy ("Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism ... Do not use [vandalism warning] templates in content disputes; instead, write a clear message explaining your disagreement.") as well as counter to our Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers guideline ("our motto and our invitation to the newcomer is be bold ... Assume good faith on the part of newcomers. ... Even if you're 100% sure that someone is a ... vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they are not.").  To the topic of using images of minor webcomics in this list, our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy holds that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." This is common sense; of course we should strive to give more weight in this list to the more significant webcomics and less weight to the least significant. Wikipedia:Notability does not apply here other than to again warn against undue weight given to less significant webcomics. "notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article ... They do not give guidance on the content of articles ... Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your input regarding Wiki policy. I've already stated repeatedly that I do not believe Starblueheather to be acting in bad faith. My citation of notability was to stress that it's not the same as importance ("notability determination does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic"), because notability is well-defined while importance - like significance - is subjective. I've defined what criteria I use to determine something significant/important: notability, thus pegging the subjective to something objective and avoiding POV issues. I think this is a justifiable position. Starblueheather has not yet defined what they deem a "minor" webcomic, beyond the two examples in question, nor found any additional reasons for removal beyond personal bias. That's the crux of the discussion currently. Dragoneer (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, vandalism is by definition acting in bad faith, so one cannot simultaneously accuse an editor of vandalism while claiming to assume they are acting in good faith. And again, notability does not apply here, and I don't see anyone other than Dragoneer talking about notability in this discussion so there's no "confusion" about it on display from anyone else. Looking at the Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy article I see that it is an obviously minor amateur webcomic without anything in the article that suggests it is of the high significance that would justify giving it the extra weight that the image provides. The significance of Beaver and Steve is slightly more debatable as it has won an award, but I can see the case for removing it as well, especially if a more significant alternative is found. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of using the images is to assist in illustrating the subject of the list. If there were dozens of images to sort through, trying to create an NPOV distinction of major vs. minor might be worthwhile (and such a discussion would take quite a while and require much more editorial input than what we have here). But since there are so few images that can be utilized to begin with, using all available resources for the benefit of the article is justified. Every image is from a notable webcomic, so there's no undue weight being granted. Dragoneer (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The idea that following our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy here and weighting by major vs. minor significance "might be worthwhile" is incorrect; it is not only worthwhile but mandatory. "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view ... This is non-negotiable." Also, a a neutral point of view is not achieved through weighting based on notability, it is achieved through weighting based on importance.  Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states clearly that we weight "in proportion to the prominence" and "strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance." Wikipedia:Notability makes it clear that notability is not quite the same thing as importance. "It is important to note that a notability determination does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic." And Wikipedia:Notability also makes clear that notability is not what we use to determine the weight given between comics listed here: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles ... the amount of coverage given to topics within articles [is] decided by its appropriate weight." (emphasis and "weight" linked to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view  in original.) So, writing from neutral point of view is mandatory, neutral point of view requires weighting based on significance, and notability has little if anything to do with weighting based on significance. So, policy requires we find some more significant alternative images to replace these images of lower significance, or just remove them without replacements, so as not to give less significant webcomics undue weight over far more significant webcomics. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  As our policies require and as discussed above, some images of less significant webcomics have been removed and some images of more significant webcomics have been added. The images added are of Captain RibMan which was syndicated to 150 newspapers and Erfworld which was among Time Magazine's Top 10 Graphic Novels of 2007. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sharks: By "replacing" "less significant" (as you deem them) comics with images of others, you seem to be establishing a limit of only one comic per year (at least in the case of 2002).  By what criteria do you make your judgments, and are you comfortable with this limit? If so, let's start cutting out all but one image for each year. 68.36.165.119 (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no one suggesting we have one image for each year. Our policies require we weight by significance. So, if there is another webcomic of roughly equal significance to Erfworld (which was among Time Magazine's Top 10 Graphic Novels of 2007), then we might add that image to that year's section. Are you making a case that New Adventures of Queen Victoria is of roughly equal significance to Erfworld? What is that case? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one making the case by feeling you need to remove an image to replace it with one you feel is "more important."  As for reasons why "Queen Victoria" is significant, it has had a longer run than "Erfworld" (by ten months) and is a much larger corpus of work, as it is a daily strip.  It's also distributed by one of the three big comics syndicates, while "Erfworld" is not.  There are three collected paperbacks of the strip, while "Erfworld" has never appeared in print.  I might also point out that while there are a lot of references within the "Erfworld" article, almost all of them are within the strip itself while nearly all in the "Queen Victoria" article are external.  While "Erfworld" got a positive write-up in 'Time,' "Queen Victoria" has been praised multiple times by 'The Washington Post.' Both significant in different ways.  If we can only have one, I think "Queen Victoria" should get the nod because it's a different method of illustration than the other comics on the page right now (photo-manipulation) while "Erfworld" is just another hand-drawn swords and sorcery epic.  Likewise, "Diesel Sweeties" and "XKCD" should stay illustrated because they're also unique in style compared to the others on the page.  Anyway, the only reason to ask whether or not "Queen Victoria" is as significant as "Erfworld" is if only one image can be shown for a given year.  It's a false equivalency. 68.36.165.119 (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the reason to consider whether "Queen Victoria" is as significant as "Erfworld" is because we are talking about giving (as the list currently does) "Queen Victoria" the same weight as "Erfworld." I don't see the Washington Post review in the "Victoria" article. Where are you getting that information from? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

text:  The additional images are fine. However, your opinion that OO and B&S are "minor" webcomics is your POV with no basis in policy or previous consensus. In fact your entire policy argument requires agreement with the assertion that the two comics in question are minor, which is clearly disputed. You need to create an objective measure of major vs. minor (i.e. something that rests on more than just your opinion) and have it agreed to by the editors of the list (which is more than just you and I). In the meantime, the OO image will be added back since until there's agreement of undue weight and resolution of the matter of how to gauge major vs. minor, removing it violates POV. Dragoneer (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Our policies require that we weight by significance. I see no one making a case that the removed images are from webcomics of high significance that ought to be given the same weight as webcomics like Erfworld, xkcd, or Dinosaur Comics. Are you trying to make such a case? What is that case? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I believe all of the images used here are free other than the one currently marked as "uncertain copyright status." At least one has been released by its creator specifically so they can place it here. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really cool how many are free.  I think if they are looked at closely, a number of them will be found to not be free, or at least require some OTRS legwork to prove they are free.  :File:Qv060217sm.jpg(This says fair use), :File:BnS 144.png, :File:CaptainRibManStomachs.gif (what about Davis?),  :File:8btheater.png (on file where?).  I would recommend removing the ones that aren't verifiably free, and then there may be room for some minor ones.  Or, if you can prove their all free, then minor ones may not be needed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points on those images. One of the removed images :File:StrangeCandySample.jpg has similar problems. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove minor webcomic images 

message: 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:
*http://awkwardzombie.com/
*http://hail-nekoyasha.deviantart.com/
*http://www.thewebcomiclist.com/p/9455/awkward-zombie (ranked at 36, higher than Ozy and Millie.)
*http://whois.domaintools.com/awkwardzombie.com (WHOIS)
*http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/awkwardzombie.com (Alexa Internet)
*http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AwkwardZombie (TV Tropes)
It has about 13,351 visitors a month. 60.9% are from the U.S.
-dogman15 (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: I'm sure it's way more well-known and notable than Subnormality. dogman15 (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Someday - When I have more time. dogman15 (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward Zombie? 

message: Where did it go? --121.1.55.86 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: El Goonish Shive does not have wikipedia page.  I believe that partially reason its not listed. -- Colt9033 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  El Goonish Shive 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sounds fair to me, as you said, there is no evidence of any permission. Evidence should be logged from the copyright holders via the ORTS system, not taken on someone's word. Rehevkor <FONT COLOR="black">✉</FONT> 23:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image permissions needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Earthsong by Crystal Yates 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is the By Genre and Topic part nessacary?