Talk:Lists of webcomics

---

List of web comics proposed inclusion guidelines

Current proposed web comic inclusion guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:Web comics. Web comics that do not meet these guidelines may be at risk of removal from the list (and possibly from Wikipedia) in the future.

Can I add this?

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)

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)

Can I ask, what counts as noteworthy, enough to have a mention and an article? --Fugabutacus (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

2003

Given that not a single date or name of a creator appears in this list, I find the intro paragraph a bit confusing... -- Delirium 06:13 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Dates can most likely be acquired (Should we do it?). Though I was wondering that myself a while back... -- Pipian

---

I removed the following introductory paragraph, which could be reinstated if dates and cartoonist names are ever included in the article body. -- RossA 00:28, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The dates shown after a name relate to the period during which the comic appeared. There is usually a fair degree of accuracy about the starting date, but because of rights being transferred or the very gradual loss of appeal of a particular strip the termination date is often very uncertain.
The names shown refer to the originators of the character; many have continued to be created by others over time. It is also to be noted that many of the characters appeared in both strip and book format as well as in other media.

---

Don't like the fact that numerical entries go before A. It's become commonplace in computer-sorted lists, but "real" encyclopedias don't do it. Lee M 05:08, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

BTW there is a temp page at Talk:List of web comics/temp/article -- User:Docu

Hmmm. The current list has about 100 comics listed. Making a page with a hundred sections, where the content of most sections is just the section title... Do you mean to only list the comics for which there's already a Wiki-article, and move the content from the not-big-enough articles to the list page? -- Khym Chanur 06:10, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

Looking for Hosers

I've recently started reading "GPF" and there was a cross-over between this and another comic named the "Hosers" in February 2000. However the latter appears to be unavailable (it used to live at http://www.hosers.org/ which is not responding): anyone know where to find it? Phil 12:29, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

• Hosers are still there, last comic appears to be 1/24/2003, site still semi-active, I'll try to determine the correct date range and add it to the list. The entry will look like this (the year on the comic looks off by one!):
• Hosers by Aric S. Campling and Lev Babiev 1999 March 22-2003 January 24? ( http://www.hosers.org/ )
• PS: cross-over with GPF is here http://www.hosers.org/archive/20000217.html Wikibob 23:24, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)

---

Hi! http://www.HOSERS.org - "HOSERS: The Comic Strip" is alive and well. This is Aric, the artist. We've had some lapses in the update schedule recently, but we're not dead. By the way, the HOSERS-GPF Comics crossover was completed with a "part 2" on our site last year, beghinning at http://hosers.org/archive/20040515.html Thank you for reading!

policy on non-existing comics?

MyTVcomic links to a yahoo group that has no comics and only 7 messages. Google of MyTVcomic finds only wikipedia and derived sites. Google groups and images each return nothing. I suggest we move such dead links to /waiting_existence_proof.

Maybe we also need Talk:List_of_web_comics/existence_proof to store references to the proof we do find. Wikibob 23:24, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)

Trivia

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)

Needed

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)

Getting example strips

I'm trying to get permission to use (under the FDL) samples from the most popular of these web comics. If you want you can help me by writing to the authors of strips and logging it here. Here's the email I use:

Hi XY,

I am one of the many, many people working on the Wikipedia encyclopedia (www.wikipedia.org). Maybe you've heard of it before; basically we're trying to collaboratively create an encyclopedia that can be freely copied and modified by everyone. I'm a great fan of webcomics, and I'm trying to make the articles about webcomics on Wikipedia richer by adding example artwork to each of them.

We respect other people's copyrights, and we can only use images if they're under a free license or in the public domain, so I would like to ask you to "donate" one of your comic strips to Wikipedia under the GNU FDL. That means that you still get full credit for it, but others can copy and modify it as long as they retain that credit and make their modifications freely available as well ("copyleft"). That would of course only apply to this single image file.

My favorite strip to use would probably be this one:

http://xyz

(insert note about why you think the strip is representative about the comic as a whole)

Please let me know if you'd be willing to donate this strip, or any other, to the "creative commons", or if you have any reservations which I might be able to address.

All best, and thanks for creating such a great comic in the first place,

your name

People I've written to so far:

• Chris of Achewood
• Stephen Notley of Bob the Angry Flower
• Owen Dunne of "You Damn Kid!"
• Brian Clevinger of 8 Bit Theater
• Chris of Superosity
• R. Stevens of Diesel Sweeties
• Jeff of Wigu.com
• Mike of Penny Arcade
• D.C. of Ozy and Millie
• John Allison of Scary Go Round
• "Hard" of Sexy Losers
• Tatsuya of Sinfest

If you want to write to anyone else, please announce it here first so we avoid duplicate work. Feel free to use my example text.

So far I've got a positive response from Brian Clevinger of 8BT, no negative response yet. I intend to add the positive ones to the email text to sway other artists.—Eloquence 10:19, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Good idea Eloquence, I've just emailed:

• Christopher Baldwin of Bruno

with an slightly modified email. -Wikibob 23:08, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)

list concerns

I'm becoming kinda concerned about this list. Are we just going to allow every 14-year-old with a webcomic to list their site here? Or is there going to be any standard? I mean, I don't even know half of the webcomics on the list and the new ones added I'd never be able to verify in a million years.

Reason being, a lot of webcomics (especially the small ones) would not be encyclopedic as a stand-alone article, but yet, we're writing the list as if an article should be created for all of these. What happens when a brand-new comic uses Wikipedia as a jumping point to generate traffic?

Just some thoughts. RadicalBender 13:55, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove all red links, so that people aren't quite so tempted to make pages for every comic they come across. We should definitely keep them listed, as it is a "list of web comics", but we should only allow articles for notable comics - ones that are consistently mentioned within webcomic circles (Penny Arcade comes to mind here, as does Megatokyo), or that are very high in respected Top-Webcomics lists such as the Buzzcomix.net's top ten. PMC 10:07, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Have to agree, have started removing red links. Might have been me that did the wikifying (too much history to wade through!), when I was still wiki-learning. My intention was when I had spare time to expand the entries here with: author's name and approximate dates. If I find an existing article, I'll link to it.Wikibob 14:55, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)

If it doesn't deserve a stand-alone article, it doesn't deserve being listed here either. Lists are a way to categorize Wikipedia articles, they are not articles in themselves. See Wikipedia is not, #11, #12. You wouldn't have people on the List of painters who are not encyclopedic either. Without articles this is a link directory, which is not acceptable.

So don't unlink non-notable comics, just remove them.—Eloquence 15:07, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Which, in addition those with articles, should appear in this notable list? My tastes do not fit the usual webcomic reader, the ones I read daily are: Bruno, Bruno the Bandit, Scary go Round and Wigu.

The ones I recognise are:

Bruno by Christopher Baldwin 
Bruno the Bandit by Ian McDonald
Chopping Block by Lee Adam Herold
Diesel Sweeties by R. Stevens
Freefall by Stanley
Gene Catlow by Albert Temple
Gneral Protection Fault by Geoffrey Darlington
Goats by Jonathan Rosenberg
Helen
Kevin and Kell by Bill Holbrook
Livingingreytown by Dave Kelly
Megatokyo
One over Zero
Scary Go Round (previously Bobbins) by John Allison
Sluggy Freelance by Pete Abrams
Superosity
User Friendly
WIGU

But I see many marked as favourite on Belfry's list that could be just as notable to another reader. I just don't want to be the one that decides. Wikibob 16:55, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)

Well, there are two options here. Either we define some criteria for inclusion now - Google hits, links, Alexa traffic ranking, being listed on some "top 100" page etc. - or we leave the links in. Removing pages arbitrarily will just mean that everyone keeps their favorite comics in the list. I think you should re-add the links until there are clear criteria for inclusion.—Eloquence 17:08, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

OK, proposal. This is two-fold. The most important goal here would be to prevent Wikipedia from helping to popularize new and unencyclopedic webcomics, right? So, let's try this:

1. Any site with a domain and an Alexa ranking of, say, 250,000 or above (that should be enough to keep moderately-popular webcomics while eliminating chaff). Exceptions:
   • Sites in transition (like to another domain name - e.g., Tsunami Channel, whose new domain name puts them at a ranking of about two million)
   • New webcomics created by already established artists (e.g., Girly created by Josh Lesnick who created CuteWendy or if Piro ever puts Warmth online) - this would be determined by Alexa ranking of existing comic.
2. One problem with this system is with Keenspace comics. Alexa treats all Keenspace subdomains equally, so they all have the same ranking. To weed out the chaff here, I recommend we go based on longevity, since over half of the Keenspace comics are effectively dead. The comic has to have been "active" (which needs defining) for more than a year and a half.

What do you think? Needs some revising. RadicalBender 17:46, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A truly fair definition of "active" would require a heuristic taking into account gaps between updates, relative size of updates, comic size, vacation allowances, and filler postings.

But that's too much work, so why not just go with raw comic count? Say, one per week, or about 70 over the proposed 18-month minimum lifespan. It's a simple metric, and also ensures that the comic has enough content for a bare-minimum description page. -- Cyrius 20:01, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Proposal looks good, I've done some Alexa ranks, and Keenspace won't be a problem as Alexa shows the % of the top 20 keenspace comics, and only 5-6 get an equivalent rank of 250,000.

See a full list of Alex-ified webcomic URLs is at User:Wikibob/todo; here are selected Alexa results (reach is 3 month average). Large numbers are the traffic rankings.

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=brunothebandit.com

brunothebandit.com:  168,242  reach is 9.8

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=genecatlow.com

genecatlow.com:    194,934  reach is 7.7

brunostrip.com:    378,875  reach is 3.1
10kcommotion.com:  311,432
scarygoround.com:   54,707  reach is 27.5
wigu.com:           67,348  reach is 21.5
sluggy.com:         16,496  reach is 96

keenspace.com:  5,796  reach is 170 users per million, of those:
 17% go to sexyloser, so that's 20 users per million
  6% go to elfonlyinn.keenspace.com, or 10 users per million

other keenspace destinations:
flem.keenspace.com ~ 4% 
thedevilspanties.keenspace.com ~ 3% -- or 5 users per million
techfox.keenspace.com ~ 3% 
utlt.keenspace.com ~ 2% -- or 3-4 users per million, approx 250,000 ranking

From these figures I would choose a ranking of 200,000 or a reach of 7.5 users per million. This knocks out Bruno (boohoo), but keeps Bruno the Bandit. I wouldn't argue with a lower ranking of 100,000 to keep the list smaller still. Of course, if a webcomic already has an article this is all moot. Wikibob 20:21, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)

List restrictions

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)

In fact, I think I'll just do it myself. :) RADICALBENDER★ 22:54, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Category

This list should be transformed into the already existing, but incomplete Category:Web comics - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:31, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of un-wikilinked entries

This is probably going to make me unpopular, but so be it. I deleted all entries that did not link to articles. And yes, that included comics I read and like. Wikipedia is not a links repository, and the inclusion of external links to obscure webcomics without articles bordered on Wikispam. It'd gotten so bad that one of the submitters at Comixpedia simply assumed when looking at it that that was what the article was for. I didn't bother checking Alexia rankings. I figure that's a criterion for getting an article—and if somebody does create an article for any of the deleted entries and re-adds the entry, great—but until then it shouldn't be here.

I considered deleting all external links too, but decided that it wasn't worth it after dropping the un-wikilinked ones. - Gwalla 05:01, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Most of the comics that got tossed deserved it, but there's some that seem to have been collateral damage. I may re-add the ones I'm familiar with after writing stubs for them to link to. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:20, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That'd be great! Yeah, there were definitely some entries I deleted that deserve articles, but I figured that if drastic action wasn't taken it'd never get fixed—nobody is going to go entry-by-entry, checking Alexa rankings for each comic. I could've wikilinked the ones I recognized as important, but I thought I might be accused of favoritism so I didn't. - Gwalla 17:57, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Although Bruno [1] has an Alexa ranking way below the suggested mininum, it did have a lengthy crossover with Helen, Sweetheart of the Internet, which is now syndicated in actual printed newspapers. A piece of trivia like that probably makes it notable enough to include. -Sean Curtin 05:54, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think Bruno may have been explicitly mentioned as a comic justifying an exception to the traffic-based guidelines. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:02, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...it looks like my mass-deletion wasn't as effective as I'd hoped. People aren't adding entires that are just external links with no wikilinks to articles—they're adding entries that are just external links with wikilinks to nonexistent articles that they have no intention of writing and that will probably never get written. Argh. - — G↭a⇅a | Talk 20:49, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've removed all of the red links, even to ones I've personally heard of or read. Old list is still in history [2] so if someone wants to created articles for all of the removed entries they're welcome to do so... -Sean Curtin 01:54, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think entries should be deleted based on the criterion that there is not a article attached to them. There are a few reasons. First, other less biased critera has been created to able a decision to be made on weather or not a comic should be included or not. This should be followed. If one doesn't feel like checking if a comic meets the critera let it be untill another does. Second, leaving in notable comics that don't have articles could inspire another wikipedian to create articles for them. Third, doing so makes the list biased, arbitrary & incomplete. ZaQ 23:05, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Excellent points, I used to feel the same way, but I realized that this list needs to be pruned or else it will be useless due to sheer length. If someone feels that a webcomic deserves inclusion, all they have to do is create a stub article. Gamaliel 14:04, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Gamaliel. The criteria should be for determining whether a given comic deserves an article, and the one criterion for inclusion in the list should be the existence of an article. Having to write a stub doesn't seem like too onerous a requirement — Gwalla | Talk 00:33, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rethinking this

When this article was on VFD, the policy of removing entries for comics without articles was criticized as being somewhat anti-wiki. And, well, I can kind of see the point there. However, I still think there needs to be some way of discouraging people from using the list for promotion. How about allowing articleless entries, but removing external links? — Gwalla | Talk 01:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the point of eliminating external links. It would make the list less useful while doing little to achieve a goal (discouraging promotion) that really isn't that significant.

I'm not sure if this sort of idea is kosher on wikipedia, but perhaps 2 lists? One for comics with articles, one for comics without. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 08:39, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that'd accomplish, besides making it more difficult to maintain. And I think discouraging the use of Wikipedia as a promotional tool is significant, since it's an abuse of the system. — Gwalla | Talk 04:12, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bruno and Christopher Baldwin

For a long time I felt Bruno and Christopher Baldwin deserved an article, and here's my first attempt. It's a single article for Christopher Baldwin for now with a Bruno redirect. I'm no writer so it needs care and attention. Also it needs mention of crossovers with other well-known webcomics, and maybe a paragraph on the life stages Bruno herself has passed through. My emailed request to use an excerpt of the comic from March has had no reply.

As to what criteria should be used for inclusion, I'm now of the opinion that only existing articles should be here, or more strongly, that once the list has been converted to categories and any information (dates and external links) saved into the respective articles, then the list is not needed. So I think it's good what Sean Curtis did, it finally prodded me to write something. -Wikibob | Talk 00:30, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)

Toon inclusion query

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)

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)

Thanks, Aris. A wikipage for Pcweenies has now been created. Kms007 15:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is the title of the comic "Pcweenies", "PC Weenies", or "The PC Weenies"? — Gwalla | Talk 16:42, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is titled "The PC Weenies" on the actual comics. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:18, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's "The PC Weenies". Sorry about that. Should I change the wikipedia entry to reflect that? Kms007 21:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Corrected it. Aris Katsaris 21:26, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Should this article go the way of the dodo?

I'm starting to think that this list is more trouble than it's worth. The information contained here is available elsewhere in Wikipedia: the start and end dates and links are (or should be) in the individual comics' articles, and the short description of webcomics duplicates material in the web comic article and the summary of Category:web comics. The actual listing can be handled by the category (anything that goes here should be in the category anyway), which has the additional advantage that a comic can only be added to the category if it has an article, saving editing time.

So, I propose that all of the comics listed here have the category link added if they don't already have it, the start/end dates be added to the appropriate articles if necessary, and this article be turned into a redirect to web comic or Category:web comics. Thoughts? — Gwalla | Talk 22:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we should abandon this list. It has its uses and provides more information at a glance than the category list. Of course, I have no objection to the web comics category, but I don't see why they can't coexist and compliment each other. Gamaliel 22:23, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The only things the category lacks are artist names, start/end dates, and external links. All are (or should be) in each comic's article. I'm not sure what this article really adds. Furthermore, the external links seem to act as an invitation for webcomic wikispam. — Gwalla | Talk 20:45, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

+Gwalla. This is one of those lists that has been eclipsed by categories. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:08, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I just went through and made sure that all of the start and end dates listed here are in the appropriate articles. I'm going to go ahead and put this page on VFD, and let the chips fall where they may. — Gwalla | Talk 01:57, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article is able to summarize information in a way categories can't, and even if its duplicated in other articles, there is no other article with such a good set of basic information. If its "more trouble than its worth", take a break from editing it, its certianly not more trouble than its worth to people reading wikipedia. Categories are a way to help organization of the 'pedia, not a replacement for lists. —siroχo 21:41, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

The list survived VfD, so I'm not going to pursue deletion any further. — Gwalla | Talk 23:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

sham wikipedia articles

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. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 01:45, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

White Ninja

I want to add White Ninja comic but I don't know the date it started. Fr3d 17:34, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 17:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

PowerPuff Girls Doujinshi

Doesn't have an article of its own - just a footnote in the main Powerpuff Girls article. Lee M 02:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi and the histories of Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi and PowerPuff Girls Doujinshi (note different capitalization) for the full story. Bo Lindbergh 04:53, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Why was it deleted, even though there was no consensus? Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi 17:05, 2005 Jul 13 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted. It was turned into a redirect. — Gwalla | Talk 01:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It's part of the Snafu Comics page.CFLeon (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Webcomics secluded to a certain community

I have a webcomic I call "TK Rants". People hail it as one of the best and they love theml. One guy in particular archives them and wishes for a perfect collection (wow Im so popular).

But the thing is, this webcomic is based on a certain community. It isn't really for the public because some material are directed only to that certain community. My webcomic is based on my community called the TK Community, which is a community devoted to the RPGToolkit. The community has at most 200 or 300 actives who expect me to draw a comic everyday (m00chers) so it gets good hits.

I've been doing it for a year and a half now. So is it valid? - TKGB

Nope. Based merely on the fact that you (being the author) are the one proposing it is probably grounds enough to kill it in VfD (they hate vanity spam). 300 daily uniques and a year and a half is very not-impressive (odds are you have no Alexa rank with those numbers, which is a fatal blow in VfD). Nifboy 03:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

(Side note: The fact that your audience is the community of a moderately obscure program is of no concern to VfD, because it seems *every* community has its own patron webcomic) Nifboy 03:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

So your answer is no? Dang. Oh well. Good thing about this community is that it has its own Wiki. It just needs...well...articles. :P - TKGB (How does one put the date in the end?)

Requested move

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)

• Support Yeah, it should be consistent--Kiba 01:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support - IMO, the spelling should be 'webcomic' wherever it appears. Ravenswood 01:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Yup, let's move it... -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 12:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support Nifboy 15:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Move the other article, since "webcomic" is an unnecessary neologism not found in dictionaries. —Michael Z. 2005-08-4 16:51 Z

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)

Please sign your comments with ~~~~. --Fibonacci 22:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Support Dragonfiend 23:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 10:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

user 71.243.144.215

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)

wikilink authors

Is it ok to wikilink the author names? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:22, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Problems to fix

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)
• I can't find a name for the creator of Elftor, and Whispered Apologies is listed as "various authors". The latter is probably as good as it'll get, given that that is, in fact, the case, but we should put something in the case of the former; it looks strange as it is.
• I've completely changed a few start dates, based on the first archived comic I could find (You Damn Kid comes to mind, but there were at least two or three others). If anyone has some reasoning for the dates that were there before that would be cool.

And... I guess that's all that comes to mind, actually, but I'd like to hear what anybody watching this page thinks needs to be done. αγδεε (ε τ c) 04:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

About the Pending Deletions...

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)

Snafu images

There have been some images added here by User:SnafuDave which all appear to come from his own comics. Personally, I've never heard of him, but I haven't really paid attention to webcomics for a while. Is he well-known?

I'm not sure what policies wikipedia has on self-promotion, and I suppose you can't really fault someone for wanting his work seen. But I'm wondering whether the comics are notable enough examples of the medium to have their pictures included, as opposed to comics like Diesel Sweeties, Goats, or a third of the comics in the "S" section.

Lots of orphaned articles added today

Well, I just spent the last 20 hours hunting down and pouring over orphaned webcomic articles and linking them up here. I've added {{webcomicsproj}} and the infobox to a bunch of them, which should make them easier to find, but I know there's still quite a few that still aren't accounted for. I think the list works better as a manifest, but cleaning up the categories would probably be a good idea. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 10:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think I've found most of the orphans, and have the authors who have articles linked up as well. I apologize for editing it in snippets. I know it's bad form, but if I'd tried to edit all in one go I would have run into edit conflicts. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 23:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

End dates

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)

• I've been thinking about that myself. We seem to be pretty inconsistent on that issue, and I'm all over the map in implementation of it myself. For a strip like Sexy Losers, which had no regular update schedule, I'd go with the announcement. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

External Links

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)

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)

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)

External links have been removed by commenting out. I've left the external links section at the end. Nice list btw :) -- Linkspamremover 01:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

(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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

OK, I'm getting a vibe here (despite what was said earlier on this page). There seems to be enough opposition to removing the external links for me to retreat gracefully and vanquish some spam elsewhere. This list is highly unusual in keeping the external links, and I can see there are unique valid reasons. I will just mention for the record that I have strong opposition to keeping the links, informed by WP:NOT, WP:EL, and particularly m:When should I link externally - especially since each item has an article. However, I approve of the compromise of bracketing the links for aesthetic reasons, and with consensus I will gladly take this task on for you, on the understanding that this list will be monitored relentlessly by you to prevent unnecessary external links (as I'm sure it is). Let me know about that proposal, and drop me a line anytime if you change your minds about removing them completely. rgds. -- Linkspamremover 14:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with you on external links. In fact, in general I don't like list articles at all. However, this one has a few things going for it. It's been AfDed twice, which has instilled discipline in those who maintain it, and it's also watched closely by a WikiProject. It's come to serve as a full-blown index of Wikipedia's webcomic articles, and has proven to me that lists aren't entirely useless. Yes, it violates the MoS. I've been aware of this for a long time, in fact. However, because it's so well-maintained I've been happy to WP:IAR. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone (71.116.174.184) seems to have removed the links anyway, a couple of months after the fact. Can someone please revert the page? n.b. the aforementioned editor has made only 2 other edits, one of them 'unnecessary'. 86.144.241.72 11:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC) (EDIT) apologies, wrong user mentioned. It was in fact Tregoweth. Can someone explain the reason for the removal of the links?

• I've reverted the changes and invited the user to discuss the matter here. Bo Lindbergh 13:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I, for one, appreciate the external links and images in the list -- it's things like that which make this list more useful than just Category:Webcomics. -- Dragonfiend 18:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Bo and Dragonfiend, but if copyright really is a concern, then we will have to remove them. We're not afforded much latitude when it comes to fair use. However, I'm skeptical having images here is a policy violation and I'd require a specific citation to accept that assessment. As far as all the external links, yes, it runs afoul of WP:MOS, but I'm going to emphatically insist on WP:IAR on this one. I think lists in general are of very marginal usefulness, but this one has a long history of being well-maintained and I'd need an extremely persuasive argument to support any sweeping change. I'm happy to lose the bolding on the author names, though; I'm not a huge fan of bold text. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 18:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with everything in the above statement. - brenneman ^{L} 01:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"Fair use images in lists" is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. -- Dragonfiend 15:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Authorship

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)
  • Also, I would add "et al." to denote multiple unlisted authors (Hence, "Shaenon K. Garrity, Andrew Farago, et al."). Nifboy 20:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

HTML entity – vs. Unicode –

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)

• Note that Curpsbot-unicodify stopped converting dashes after complaints about reduced distinguishability. Bo Lindbergh 13:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• I'm going to go ahead and move the document back to the HTML entity. In the font I use for editing forms, the various dashes are indistinguishable. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

External links

• 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)

• I've no objections to limiting this article's external links section to just Comixpedia. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 08:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and removed them. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 16:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

{{webcomicsproj}}

The |importance=no is not necessary on the {{webcomicsproj}}. It is enough to indicate it's a non-article page. Particularly to those who are not familiar with WP:1.0, calling it "non-important" is very misleading. Please don't add it back in. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 03:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Checking

Has anyone gone through and looked for redirects/dead external links lately? If not, can we divide the page up and tick off sections. - brenneman ^{L} 14:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I 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)

I've verified Shifters through Zortic as valid links and noted a few that have gone dormant. —Tamfang 06:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Images

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Although the QC strip does have both Mogwai and Mercury Rev references in its favour. - Hahnchen 04:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

article names

Please rename from comicname to comicname_(webcomic). For the reason not to confuse with real-world concepts, for instance 20th_Century_Fox vs 21st_Century_Fox (new name: 21st_Century_Fox_(webcomic)). A few articles already use this extension. User:Yy-bo 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why 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)

Cyanide and Happiness

why not?

Because we don't link to deleted articles. Bo Lindbergh 06:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It has an article now--Nimrod1234 22:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

longevity

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)

False positives

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)

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)

M

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)

• The criteria for this would be the same as anything else: Reliable sources. Do reliable sources call it a webcomic? -- Dragonfiend 05:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I found no references to it as a webcomic. Not even the article on wikipedia calls it that. so I removed it. Master shepherd 19:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Chronological order?

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)

Great idea. —Tamfang 20:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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).

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)

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).

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)

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)

Glasses Boy and A Rabite Season?

A web comic that has become kind of popular among some friends and me is one that launched a few weeks ago (at Glassesboy.com) and I wasn't sure if it deserves a spot on the list. The art quality is a bit low, it's kind of new, and I don't know how popular it is. I do think it has a lot of potential and the humor is great.

The other comic is Rabite Season (from rabiteseason.com). The website that hosts it is apparently down though so I'm not sure if it would be worth adding. 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

All web comics must meet the requirement outlined Wikipedia:Notability (web) in order to be listed. The alternative is List of Webcomics at Comixpedia which is more open the comunity.

DyslexicDan 03:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Order of All the Webcomics

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) )

• If you're looking for a specific article, you can always use the "search" box on the left side of the page. --Dragonfiend 04:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Not on the list?

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)

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)

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)

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. Murgh^disc. 17:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

XKCD

Has an article but isn't in the list. 80.44.140.156 16:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Then add it :p --Garfunkle20 14:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why so few?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Minor Asthetic Edits

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)

• The lists are in chronological, not alphabetical order. --Dragonfiend (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Images for each year

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)

• Long-standing consensus is to not overload this page with images. It is also to not overload any list with non-free images. --Dragonfiend (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The images left are all usable, though. The last discussion was 2 years ago, before Wikipedia became more aggressive about eliminating images without justification. So the ones left have all been vetted by Wikipedia Commons. I can see your point on "overloading" - too many comics would interfere with readability. I'd be willing to settle for just 1-2 per year when possible. Still, an article on a visually oriented topic should include more images than what's currently present. Buspar (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not an article. It is a list. An image which may be fair use for an article is not fair use in a list. --Dragonfiend (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see. How about just adding images that are under Creative Commons and GFDL, then? Erfworld has one of these, for example. Buspar (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, as per above on this talk page, all images in this list should be free images, like they were before you added so many non-free images. Also, as per above on this talk page, we still don't need to overload the list with every free image available. Ten images is verging on overload. --Dragonfiend (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I wasn't the one who added the images - I restored them because I thought they made for a good addition. Double check the Polymer City Chronicles image, it notes in the description that it's been released to the public. I think the uploader put the wrong copyright tag on it. Buspar (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
          • The uploader originally used a now deprecated template that was very problematic due to vague wording and frequent confusion between the meaning of "free use" and "fair use." We shouldn't speculate on whether the uploader was confused or in which possible way. We'd do better to err on the side of caution when it comes to copyright and image overload in lists. --Dragonfiend (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Fair enough. It is surprising how few comic articles have images. Is there any kind of concerted effort to fix this by getting authors to release individual sample comics or images to GFDL? Buspar (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Short of individuals going to the comic authors themselves and asking permission, no. --Fesworks (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Current comics

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)

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)

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)

Misfile

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)

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)

Ya know, the webcomic world is wide enough that one can't expect to know everything. —Tamfang (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

darken

A webcomic called darken at http://www.darkencomic.com/ that has been online since 2003 dec 16th. it has its own wiki page and i have seen camoes of its characters and author in other webcomics so it seems highly known in certain circles. it is on going.

may i add it?

p.s. i think this is what i do right... sorry if i totally screwed something up :(

70.50.236.185 (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Robert,C,Drever "The_Lone_Dragon.

Also, Bagels

Submitting Also, Bagels for consideration. Obviously it has it's own page as well as an independent site [3] (vs. other comics that are hosted by comicdish drunk duck etc.) The first comics have a time stamp of 1/20/2009, which would make it elegible for the 2009 list. WolfLogic (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

Remove minor webcomic images

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)
• Most of the images here are of very major webcomics like xkcd and Diesel Sweeties while a few others were of much more minor webcomics that appear to be here only because they were added by he comic's fans or creators. If you have a reason why images of these relatively minor comics like Beaver and Steve and Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy should be displayed so prominently, please explain your reasoning. Also, I don't appreciate being accused of "vandalism", which you've done three times now. So, stop accusing me of vandalism, please. Thanks, Starblueheather.
  • You've established that you're not acting from bad faith, so I'm not accusing you of being malicious, just of making a mistake (mainly jumping the gun a little). All comics in the list are notable and significant as they all have articles, so your argument regarding "minor" comics is fundamentally incorrect. The criterion for image inclusion is whether the image has the proper license. For example, there are several comics that have images that would be great to use in this list, but those images weren't uploaded with the correct permissions. It's why I agree with you on removing the "Queen Victoria" comic, since it was not licensed correctly.
    • The "Queen Victoria" image has been licensed and approved by the author. I know that because I am the author, and have repeatedly stated that my images are licensed for encyclopedic and educational uses, which includes Wikipedia and its derivatives. PabSungenis (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Consensus to date has been that the other two images be included, so it is your responsibility to provide an overriding reason to remove them. As far as I know, neither of them were added by their creators (which might be a conflict of interest). Neither year has space issues (unlike the 2002 section), so there are no formatting problems to consider. And, as I said, your statement regarding "minor webcomics" is at odds with Wikipedia's own notability system. Do you have any other justifications for deletion? Dragoneer (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • It seems you are accusing me of vandalism because you disagree with me on which images ought to be here. Just because you disagree with me does not give you the right to call me a vandal. It also seems that your belief is that this list should include all images which are "uploaded with the correct permissions." I disagree, and my overriding reason for removing them is that they are minor webcomics and a fair and balanced list of webcomics will prominently display the most important ones rather than some of the least important ones. Thanks, Starblueheather.
      • I thought your edits were vandalism because you're a new user who removed appropriate content with no explanation on the talk page or edit summary. Your earlier edits not only removed the images in question but a Wikilink to a webcomic, which was definitely a mistake, since it reduced the completeness of the list. The nature of the content removed had nothing to do with it - had you removed the image from Copper or a link to Penny Arcade I would've responded in kind. Notice that I kept your 1993 edit since it was constructive. I am not accusing you of being malicious, since you've made it clear you were not trying to disrupt the article. I am trying to help you by discussing the matter with you. Please try to be less inflammatory.
      • For Yearly subsections without space issues, including as many images as possible that have proper licenses is appropriate to give as full an illustration of the subject matter as possible. You seem to be having issues differentiating "notability" from "importance." The introductory line of the article: "This list of notable webcomics includes comics which are (or were) primarily published on the World Wide Web, known as webcomics." It does not say "major" or "more important," but notable. A comic is notable if it has an article. The two comics in question have articles, so they are notable, and are equal in notability to any other webcomic with an article. Delineations such as "major" and "minor" do not exist on Wikipedia for the purposes of this list and cannot be used as a criteria for image inclusion. Please read WP:N to help clarify this point further. Dragoneer (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
        • You are in fact accusing me of being malicious, as vandalism is by nature malicious. I disagree with you that everything on wikipedia is of equal importance as anybody can create an article on something unimportant. The link you provided confirms that belief because it spends a lot of time talking about articles that are not notable. I still stand by my position that some of the images in this list (Beaver and Steve and Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy) give too much prominence to these very minor webcomics, and they ought to be removed. Thanks, Starblueheather.
          • You're still confusing dissimilar terms: importance is not the same as notability. All articles listed here are equal in notability - importance is a matter of opinion and changes from person to person. The facts are that the two comics are notable and their images are properly licensed, therefore they can be used in the list. It is your point of view the comics are minor, but to delete their images from the article because of that alone would constitute a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV clause: it would be editing from personal bias rather than any official policies or consensus on the matter. It would be no different than if I said, "xkcd only has stick people, so it's not a major webcomic and I'm going to remove its image." Clearly you would (rightly) oppose such a removal. Your argument is similarly constructed and I'm trying to help you recognize that. Dragoneer (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Unless the image is free, it should be removed per WP:NFCC. That should free up some room. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Good points on those images. One of the removed images File:StrangeCandySample.jpg has similar problems. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Image use

One of the above editors who wants an image of their own webcomic included on this list has written a blog post titled "HEY, WIKIPEDIA IDIOTS! READ HERE. I found that blog post through a link after they added it to the permissions for their image they want to insert here. There are multiple problems with this. The first would be that this appears to be a webcomic artist with a strong conflict of interest attempting to use wikipedia to promote their webcomic. Another problem would be that this webcomic artist has not released this as a free image that could be used in this list; instead they have released it only for "not-for-profit works" and "non-commercial uses." Also, this artist expresses their belief that their webcomic ought to be given the same weight as xkcd, Diesel Sweeties, etc. because their webcomic is "pretty fucking major. So bite me, Wikiassholes." According their advertising networks stats for their site, they receive about 300 visitors per day. That doesn't sound pretty any kind of expletive major. So, with concerns about conflict of interest, improper image license, and undue weight given to a webcomic with 300 readers, I have removed this image from this list. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't usually butt in on these discussions, but the more this one has been brought to my attention the past few days, the more I see I have to jump in.

Yes, I licensed all of my images for use on Wikipedia and all legitimate derivative uses. I did this months ago to avoid these kinds of issues. It seems that a few overly-opinionated people like "Sharksaredangerous" who don't care for my strip have been trying to get it removed from Wikipedia. That's your right, but I will stand by those of my readers who want to fight you on that issue. The fact remains that I have licensed, very explicitly, those images for use here and in derivative projects. Whether or not you like that is your problem, not mine.

As for readership, I've taken the liberty of uploading a screen-shot from my syndicate at GoComics.com. You can look at it for yourself at http://www.newadventuresofqueenvictoria.com/readercount.gif if you're curious. If you doubt it, go ahead and look for yourself at GoComics.com and click on "A-Z listing." This shows a "subscriber" count of 12,911 as of this morning (November 18, 2009). This is what I based my count of nearly 13,000 on. This only counts people who have the strip E-Mailed to them daily by GoComics.com. It doesn't count views on my webpage (which you cite), or views on their webpage, or people who retrieve the strip through RSS feeds. I haven't taken the time to inquire about how many hits the strip gets at GoComics each day, but I probably will after this. Suffice it to say that I have considerably more than the 300 readers you like to credit me with.

As for "self promotion," I get maybe three or four referrer links from Wikipedia every day at my own site. Considerably less than most other sites that link to me. I really don't need Wikipedia to promote me. I'm just defending my work against people with their own agendas here.

As for the "Wikiasshole" claim, I think it's apt in your case, since you're a Wikipedia editor and you are behaving... well, I'll leave it to your imagination. PabSungenis (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but however important you think your webcomics are, your image is still clearly not a free image, and you still clearly have a conflict of interest. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The only conflict of interest I may have is by participating here in the discussion page, which is not listed anywhere as a conflict, and by editing to revert vandalism done by another user which did not involve anything connected with me. Now, if that is considered a conflict of interest, I will gladly go back and re-delete the images of the other comics I restored. If that will make you happy, let me know and I will do it.

To answer your "free image" arguments, over on my page I released two panels completely into the public domain for any users who want to use them to represent my strip anywhere, including here. That shoots down your two arguments. As for "undue weight," that's an opinion of yours and yours alone, and one carried out solely based on your dislike for the material in question, not any quantifiable measurement. PabSungenis (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this image has the correct licensing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, now that Pab has finally got the proper license after several tries, does anyone else see a problem with a webcomic artist placing their own images into this list? That seems like a conflict of interest to me. Does anyone think that this webcomic is a major webcomic that ought to be given the extra weight that an image provide? I don't think this is a major webcomic, so giving it extra weight doesn't seem neutral to me. Also, calling other editors assholes would seem to be outside the bounds of accepted civility. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, they seem to be notable enough for their own article. And they've provided a free image. The asshole thing isn't good, but I don't think we should let it effect our decision. It looks like there's room, since 2005 through 2008 only have one other image. I say put it in, and if someone wants to remove it later because things get tooo crowded or the main article is deleted, that's fine too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification.

Unless you release your images under a license which allows commercial reuse, you have not licensed it in a manner in keeping with Wikipedia policies, as explained at the Image use policy. This is a big bone of contention among a number of users, self included, but at present the consensus is that Wikipedia only freely uses images licensed thus, because "for an image to be considered "free" under Wikipedia's Image use policy, the license must permit both commercial reuse and derivative works." If you look at image use policy, which is mandated by the Wikimedia Foundation, you'll see it states Wikipedia's mission [is] to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media. So we can use this image, but only in accordance with our non-free content policies, which means it has to meet Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The criterion spoecific to this debate would be number 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." So I suggest editors dance around that point and work towards a consensus. I'll keep an eye on the debate and I'd advise all editors to respect our civility policies and assume that each other editor acts in good faith, because I hate blocking people. Hiding T 09:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Have just glanced at the page and noticed a new image has been uploaded which is perfect. Thanks. Hiding T 10:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Subnormality not listed??

One of the most impressive web comics I've seen is Subnormality and I'm very suprised that it's not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. They have over 130 highly skilled and detailed comics (most very profound, IMO), and have been going since 2007. Judging by the number of serious comments, they must have a large audience.

Get your sources together and write an article for them. 68.81.43.174 (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC

Awkward Zombie?

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)

Addendum: I'm sure it's way more well-known and notable than Subnormality. dogman15 (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat what was replied to basically the same question above. Get your sources together and write up a page. The key requirement here is that any webcomic listed on this page must have a Wikipedia entry for it. To have a Wikipedia entry it must be notable in some way. Locate citations to establish notability and go crazy. 173.126.129.118 (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

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

I wrote up a page here. Feel free to add to it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

El Goonish Shive

Where did it go? --121.1.55.86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC).

El Goonish Shive does not have wikipedia page. I believe that partially reason its not listed. -- Colt9033 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Image permissions needed

Resolved

 – Both images have now had permissions confirmed via the Wikimedia OTRS system; -84user (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Two of the images used in the list article List of webcomics have been put up for deletion with the edit summary "This file is up for deletion, per CSD F11 (no permission)." Unless evidence of permission is sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org they will be deleted 7 days after the tagging.

Now, I have just sent an email to the copyright holder of the ScaryGoRound image, requesting confirmation that they did indeed give permission to release it under the GFDL. If I receive a positive reply I will forward it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I am doing this because I created derivative images from that sample (used elsewhere in wikipedia) and I relied on the license claimed by the uploader in good faith.

The other image is this Diesel Sweeties sample, which will also be deleted if no evidence of a free license arrives. I leave that to other interested editors to pursue. If you do send an email, please note that here, to avoid duplicate emails being sent. -84user (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

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 ✉ 23:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

For the ScaryGoRound image I have just received a positive reply which I have forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. -84user (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And now, I have just sent an email requesting confirmation to the Diesel Sweeties author. -84user (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Earthsong by Crystal Yates

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)

• It looks like the article for the webcomic was redirected after someone couldn't find any sources for it. I've removed it from the list, but if you want to find sources for the comic then feel free. I couldn't really find anything myself, but another pair of eyes searching would be a good idea, just in case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the By Genre and Topic part nessacary?

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)