Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Webcomics/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Merged

Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Merge with WikiProject Webcomics WikiProject Webcomics was moved to become a work group of Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. Hiding Talk 20:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines

Where can I find the guidelines for notability, criteria for deletion, etc. relating to web comics? --Brianmc 17:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if they have any particular guidelines per se. The closest approximation I know of is Wikipedia:Notability (web). If anyone knows of any more specific guidelines, of course, I encourage them to indicate as much below. John Carter 18:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Notability (web), it has had its wording relaxed on October 28 following a query of mine, but I only recently saw the change. Previously it appeared to require web content to meet all three criteria, now only any one of the criteria is sufficient. Maybe some were reading the stricter sense and thereby prompted to speedy, prod and AFD.-Wikianon 11:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mass speedy deleting

A lot of web comics have been speedied by one editor - see User talk:70.116.31.203. It has been suggested that this might be in response to this slashdot discussion, although whether the point they are making is that it is easy to delete articles or whether it has inspired them to remove a good slice of them (or it isn't connected at all). This suggests causing a Delete Storm to change policy.

It does look like the result will be a number of AfDs and it might be worth watching out for others trying the same thing. (Emperor 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

Deletionism

Possibly related to the above but almost definitely the biggest issue that faces the work group - seems to be getting a lot of attention at the moment: Wikimedia fundraiser highlights webcomic community's frustration with Wikipedia guidelines. (Emperor 02:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Assessing notability

This may not be the right place but here are my inexpert assessments of the notability of some webcomics listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive_29#Webcomics_Delete-O-Mania. I had already added rather verbose assessments for Bobbins, Scary Go Round and 1/0. Here, WEB #1, #2 and #3 refer to numbered clauses in Wikipedia:Notability (web). Most webcomic articles are still in dire need of third party references, which I'll add whenever I find any. I searched using google, then I looked for WCCA nominations and any comments by websnark, webcomics examiner, comixpedia or comixtalk.

Key: WS = Eric Burn's Websnark; XX = Xaviar Xerexes of Comixtalk and Comixpedia

I'll look at the remaining later. I did look at, and edit, When I Grow Up (webcomic) and, although IMHO notable, I feel it could be merged into Wigu's history section with the character descriptions trimmed. -Wikianon 17:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Webcomics Wikia

This came up in a chat with Hiding - one of our solutions to webcomics failing notability would be to transwiki it to some webcomics wikia. Comixpedia seemed the best webcomic wiki but it seems to have stalled and they aren't that enthusiastic about turning it over to wikia [1].

One of the solutions to the problems some in the webcomics have with Wikipedia would be solved by them getting more involve here but the Webcomic Project died which is why it had to be brought over here as a work group. Perhaps some kind of wikia might be a good halfway house solution that would help make the majority of people happy. I have to admit I was surprised there wasn't already one running when much less popular subjects seem to have theirs.

Anyone got any ideas about this? It'd certainly help us and would help the webcomics community as a whole but it seems to founder on a lack of enthusiasm, which I think is a bit odd. (Emperor 17:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

Yes, please consider filing in entries on webcomics in a special wiki for the effect. The people adding every bit of webcomics out there to Wikipedia are doing nothing but devalue Wikipedia. Please make everyone happier by doing transwiki.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves talk / contribs (join WP:PT) 05:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Webcomics

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards - does this confer notability

Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki was recreated with a source showing that it won in the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards - But does this make the webcomic notable? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This has an AFD about it here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sparkling_Generation_Valkyrie_Yuuki_(2nd_nomination) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I've been following the link in WhisperToMe's second post on the SGVY discussion page expecting it to be a link to a "long-standing consensus" regarding the WCCA's or at least a description of such a consensus, but it just keeps bringing me here to this very recent conversation between only two (now three) users. Can anyone (WhisperToMe or Dragonfiend for instance) provide me with the correct link? --Darkmanfan (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Dragonfiend said there is long-standing consensus. (You see his post above, right?) - I'll see if there are any prior discussions. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Here is the answer: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Webcomics/Archive_5#Award_sites - Dragonfiend said that the answer is that if gaining an award means that other sources write about the comic, then the award nomination is notable. I.E. winning the WCCA is not enough by itself; the comic also has to have reliable sources generated because of the award. Nobody said anything after that, so Dragonfiend's statements were not challenged. I'll see if I can find more. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the research, and for continuing to dig. This is enlightening, but I have to say that it still doesn't seem like the discussion Dragonfiend has been refering to (both here and elsewhere). In the link you provide, an editor asks if the WCCA confers notability. They receive two responses. One is from someone who references instances where it has been used to prove notability and one from Dragonfiend where she says: "If being nominated for or winning any award results in being the topic of multiple non-trivial reputable sources, than winning the award meets Wikipedia:Notability". I don't think this is the "long-standing consensus" to which Dragonfiend refers, because I don't think she would be intentionally misleading. Being the last to speak when others have spoken first in disagreement is hardly consensus. Two days ago int the SGVY AfD Politizer said, "the article's subject meets notability guidelines". No one has since responded to him. Do we suddenly have a "long-standing consensus" that SGVY is a notable subject worthy of an article? Maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't think so. Again, I appreciate your research. It's times like this I wish Wikipedia had better ways for searching for content strictly about itself. Dragonfiend will probably give us the link when she comments again, in the meantime I'll keep looking as well. --Darkmanfan (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
        • That discussion of three users took place weeks before the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (2nd nomination) that involved many, many editors. That small discussion should not have been used in an attempt to influence the SGVY AFD. We're not going to use the Durova tactic of, "Whoever remains silent is in agreement with my way." SashaNein (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Webcomics articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Webcomics articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Webcomic article requests

I would like for Awkward Zombie and Brawl in the Family (webcomic) to be created. I tried for Awkward Zombie here. I don't know if anybody watches this page, but I figured I would put it here. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(about a year later, folks) Working on a Brawl in the Family one here. It helps that TriforceBun on their forums has already done a look for sources. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd be down with that. I hope it has enough to be an article. Last time it got deleted due to a prod for no evidence of notability. I intend to not let this one get prodded if it comes down to it. It should go to AfD where I think it would survive. By the way, I posted a topic on the Awkward Zombie forums about my draft article, so hopefully it gets the same enthusiasm as the BitF forums. Not to mention, after a year, many new sources have likely been made. They just need to be found. Blake (Talk·Edits) 05:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability (web) criterion three

A discussion has been underway for a couple of weeks about criterion three of WP:WEB, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". The debate is about whether or not this criterion is necessary, and if the guideline is changed it could affect AfD discussions on webcomics, flash games, and other online content. Editors are warmly invited to take a look and leave their opinions. The discussion thread can be found here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

PROD notification

I've just proposed the deletion of Webdonuts. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A discussion on whether or not Web Cartoonist's Choice award is a reliable source is being had.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Web_Cartoonist.27s_Choice_award Anyone familiar with webcomics, please join in the discussion. Dream Focus 19:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Transwiki-ing articles to comixpedia.org?

A quick search through talk archives shows that, at times, deleted webcomic articles have been copied to http://www.comixpedia.org. Is it still a common practice today? How is attribution handled in those cases to comply with CC licensing? Diego (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Comics/Webcomics At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:51, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Megatokyo for FAR

I have nominated Megatokyo for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

The Soxaholix for GAR

The Soxaholix, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

History of webcomics

I just finished up a somewhat large project of mine to 1) improve Wikipedia's coverage on the history of webcomics, and 2) make the project easier to navigate. Earlier, I have created lists such as List of video game webcomics and List of LGBT-related webcomics - now, I have created many more. I converted our "List of webcomics" into "Lists of webcomics", which seems more proper (compare to List of comics, for example). I've also created some templates, most notably Template:Webcomics. I'm sure I've made some mistakes and oversights, but I think this is pretty good right now.

On the history of webcomics, I have created the following articles:

I hope my efforts improve Wikipedia's coverage of webcomics well. I'm posting this here for two reasons. The first one is that I'd be happy if someone would look my work over and fix obvious mistakes. I'm sure my work isn't perfect ^_^

The second reason is that I want to revive this taskforce. I'll be posting some more discussions in the coming weeks, related to mass-deletions and some questions I'd like opinions on. I was wondering if anyone on Wikipedia has any interest in becoming active on this WikiProject again. Feel free to reply either way! Thank you for reading ~Mable (chat) 20:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, these articles are also eligible for DYK (Did You Know), but I can't think of any clever hooks. I'm open for suggestions. ~Mable (chat) 20:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I just put up 2001 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards to 2008 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards up for AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. The event itself is notable, but not each year individually is. I'd like some input :) ~Mable (chat) 08:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Professional webcomic artists – outdated

"only a select few are financially successful," that is in the lead of webcomic, in the description of Web fiction#webcomic and, of course, at List of professional webcomic artists. I don't believe it's controversial to say that that list is outdated, but that's not what I'm making this discussion for. I think the idea that very few webcomics are "financially successful" or that cartoonists are "lucky if their webcomic can support its own hosting bills" is completely outdated. The source used for this is a book released in 2006: Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists. Ten years later, the webcomics industry has crashed and revived.

I've tried to get a bit of grasp on the kind of money webcomics make. Here are my findings:

According to The New York Observer in 2015, "a handful" of artists have managed to make a living, but the article then goes on saying "By and large, the creators we spoke to seem to be past the point of worrying about paying for the basics." Comics Alliance managed to give a detailed impression of the finances of two web cartoonists, but it's a very limited sample size. Some comics on Tapastic make over $800 per month. Going into original research territory, even lesser known webcomics such as El Goonish Shive and Grrl Power make their creators more than American minimum wage through Patreon. Assuming the creator of Gamercat also sells merchandise and makes money through advertisement, I can imagine her making a living out of webcomics.

What kind of statement can we make about "financial success" on articles like Webcomic? ~Mable (chat) 14:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Old list of webcomics

Recently, I copied the old "List of webcomics" to my userspace, changing the list to a more useful Lists of webcomics (based on lists like "Lists of comics" and "Lists of films"). I kept the original list around in my userspace to help me finish up the Category:Years in webcomics. If anyone has any interest in it, the list can still be found at User:Maplestrip/Temporary list of webcomics. Maybe someone could use it to create 1999 in webcomics or something - I no longer have any interest in the project :) ~Mable (chat) 20:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I've created an essay, titled webcomics are no good as sources, or WP:WANGAS for short. Before moving it to the regular essay space, I figured I'd ask for feedback here. I've noticed an infestation of people using primary webcomic sources (something that is particularly easy to do for webcomics), and I thought an essay could discourage this behavior better than our current original research guideline does. I've put some comedic tones in there as well to make it an easier read, but I think what it needs most is a good copy-edit. Anyone interested in improving the prose, perhaps trimming it a bit, keeping the essence of the essay intact: please do! ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 14:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Just moved it to the Wikipedia namespace, seeing as no one seems to have any immediate issues with it. ~Mable (chat) 14:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of lists of webcomic characters

I just put a bunch of lists of webcomic characters up for PROD. I think the lack of sources on lists like List of Kevin and Kell characters and List of User Friendly characters make it clear that the cast itself isn't notable (as fictional content tends to be). In case anyone opposes, however, I figured I'd let people know here, as none of the original creators are still active on Wikipedia. ~Mable (chat) 15:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources for webtoons?

We have a few articles on webtoons, such as The Gamer (manhwa), Soul Cartel, Fashion King (manhwa), Girls of the Wild's, Dr. Frost, God of Bath, Orange Marmalade, etc. See also: Category:South Korean webcomics. Many of these articles are severely lacking in sources, and none of them seem to include any Korean-language sources. Once a show gets its own TV-drama (see Misaeng (manhwa)), sources start to pop up, but I have difficulty finding anything useful for webtoons that don't have any adaptations. I know for a fact that The Gamer and Girls of the Wild's are well-known comics, and it would be painful if they didn't meet notability guidelines.

Does anyone know any South-Korean publications that focus on webtoons? Seeing as how popular the form seems to be in Korea, I would assume that plenty such sources would exist. Honestly, any source that consistently reports on webtoons would be fine. It would be very nice if we had a group of possible sources to expand such articles from, even if only a small amount of people have access to said sources. ~Mable (chat) 11:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I did just find two websites that are described on the Korean Wikipedia as "news and information media":
I can't actually read the websites, but I'll try to see if I can use them in some way. I don't know if they are reliable, though. Thoughts? ~Mable (chat) 12:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Webtoon Insight seems to be a database. It provides character information and user ratings, among other things. It might be useful as an external link. See this page on The Gamer for an example. ~Mable (chat) 12:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you can find more well-made webtoons from Korean portal sites. I write Korean portal's webtoon sites bottom.
I know of webtoon portals, but they only make webtoons available. I am looking for review and news websites for webtoons. ~Mable (chat) 05:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Professional webcartoonists

I'm working on creating a proper replacement for the painfully outdated List of professional webcomic artists article. You can find a draft of it here. I'm still just looking for sources, and I'm actually rather busy with life right now, but I just wanted to let people know that I'll finish this eventually. This project may end up being as big as History of webcomics, though, so it will definitely take a while! ~Mable (chat) 09:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

List of reliable and unreliable sources for webcomics

I've created a list of possible webcomics sources based on WP:VG/S. Seeing as how difficult I often find it to find good sources, I think this will prove very useful. Even more so because of how many user blogs there are around that are almost indistinguishable from the more acclaimed websites. Please share your thoughts over at Wikipedia:Webcomic sources and its talkpage. Do know that the list is far from complete. ~Mable (chat) 09:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Good Article reviews

I just nominated Time (xkcd) for Good Article. Furthermore, I'd like to get it out there that I'd review any webcomics-related GA, FA, and FL nominations, as well as peer reviews. I'm really trying to create some more activity in this project, after all. ~Mable (chat) 14:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I now also nominated What If?: Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical Questions. ~Mable (chat) 09:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Both have reached GA! Do see the topic workshop for details! getting close! :) ~Mable (chat) 11:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Webcomic category by year of debut

Right now, we have particularly un-useful subcategories in Category:Webcomics by year, where webcomics are only categorized by decades in which they have run. I'm going to start a project where I will categorize all webcomics by starting year as well, using categories ranging from Category:1995 webcomic debuts to Category:2016 webcomic debuts. Seeing as webcomics tend to run for multiple years - sometimes even decades - the three categories we have right now are still useful. Obviously, this project is going to take a while, but at least now everyone knows :) ~Mable (chat) 11:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I've done 1994 to 2002 and am planning to continue this later. Feel free to take a look at it. Meanwhile, I've been doing some minor other things with categorization, primarily removing all webcomics from Category:Webcomics, as it would be silly to fill the category with that. Also, feel free to help out! :) ~Mable (chat) 13:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Scott McCloud's old top 20

In 2004, Scott McCloud created a top 20 personal favorite webcomics, in alphabetical order. The page has since gone offline, but of course it has been grabbed plenty by Archive.org. Is this page useful in any way for Wikipedia? Could we use this for the reception section of various webcomics? I'm thinking not, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on this topic. ~Mable (chat) 20:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Combula Crystelice

Would someone would might taking a look at Combula Crystelice to see if it's notable enough for a stand-alone article? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up here, Marchjuly! I haven't been able to find any news articles or reliable reviews or anything like that using custom Google searches. A general news search brings back nothing, and a regular Google search only gives results of websites where the webcomic is available. There's indeed no notability here, so it can't have a stand-alone article ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 11:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look Maplestrip. It appears that the article was tagged for speedy deletion and has already been deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw the tag on it when I checked it out. I think a Proposed Deletion would have been more proper, but I didn't see it survive an AfD either way. ~Mable (chat) 13:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Archive 6/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Webcomics.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Webcomics, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Loxie & Zoot

Loxie & Zoot is up for deletion again. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Are webtoons webcomics?

There is a disagreement between me and @AquilaXIII: regarding whether webtoons are a type (style?) of webcomic or a completely separate medium. This has come up in the edit history of the Webcomics template and the talkpage of "Webcomics in China". I would like to hear some thoughts on this by third parties. I could give quite a few sources calling webtoons webcomics (Examples: [2][3][4]), but I don't know if that's the way to go about it. ~Mable (chat) 10:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Bumping this because I think it's a fairly important question. Rereading the The Comics Journal article above in particular, I really do think webtoons are a subcategory of webcomics. I'd love to see sources that conflict with that, though. ~Mable (chat) 09:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Some sources refer to them as digital comics. [5] And there's series referred to as digital comics that are published on Line Webtoon. [6] Oornery (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@AquilaXIII: I just noticed that you've been describing most such works in Asian countries explicitly as "digital comics" rather than "webcomics" (such as all webmanga, and not just the common Japanase digital comics magazines). Are you seeing webcomics as a specifically English-language idea that doesn't apply worldwide? I think your and my interpretations of these terms are a bit different. ~Mable (chat) 12:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: Not at all, I'm making the distinction that webtoons are more of a digital comic then webcomic and that due to the majority of early Western webtoons being webcomics, many think that webtoons are just a variation of webcomics and not digital comics. China, France, and India all have a strong webcomic scene and none of them are English speaking countries. The reason why there is a distinction between a digital comic and webcomic is because webcomics are more like the digital version of a comic strip and not a full-fledged comic book. The term is sometimes used to refer to comic books that are released digitally even though they are uniquely different. If Marvel or DC release a comic exclusively online through their service or an online store like comiXology, some will sometimes refer to it as a webcomic. Someone who draws for comic books is referred to a "comic book artist" or "comics artist" while a person who draws for comic strips is referred to as a "cartoonist". The same goes for artist who draw webcomics who are referred to as "web cartoonists" rather than comic book artists since webcomics are closer related to comic strips than comics books or graphic novels. That is also why I wanted to make the distinction between webtoons and webcomics since webtoons in Asia are just an online version of manhwa, manhua, and manga as opposed to here in the U.S. where many are just webcomics in the webtoon format although that has changed now that more artists are making their own works that are full fledged comics as webtoons. Take titles like Safely Endangered and Bluechair which are both webtoons but can be labeled as webcomics rather then comic books where as something like Aerial Magic and Haxor can't since they are more full fledged comics. All four are Western webtoons but not all of them can be labeled webcomics or comic books. Other countries also confuse the terms webcomic and digital comic as well and some even use the adjective "web" when referring to their own digital comics as seen here. AquilaXIII (talk) 19:49, May 31, 2018 (UTC)
@AquilaXIII: So the crux of the argument is that "webtoons" are more akin to traditional comic books (disregarding their usage of the infinite canvas and focusing more on their story structure) while "webcomics" are more akin to comic strips? Most webcomics I read use a comic book format, such as nearly anything hosted on Hiveworks. Though short-form gags have always been popular among English-language webcomics, I would not consider it a defining feature of webcomics. Moreover, their are shortform Korean and Japanese webtoons that make use of 4-koma gags. How would you consider them? I may not understand your argument well enough. ~Mable (chat) 07:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Maplestrip: I think Hiveworks is another example of the term webcomic and digital comic being used interchangeably instead of being two different, distinct things. As for webtoons, what the defining features of these comics are is that each episode or chapter is published on one long vertical strip, the use of color for countries that traditionally make them in black-and-white, and the use of animation, special effects, and music by some titles. Yes, webtoons are more akin to traditional comic books than webcomics but what you said is also true and not all webcomics or comic strips are comedic in tone or story but most are. 4-koma are often described by both non-Japanese and Japanese as their form of comic strips since almost all of them are comedic in nature. Very few have a coherent story line that will continue throughout the run of the manga similar to comic strips around the world. I apologize if this still seems confusing or confrontational in any way but I just wanted to make sure that many understand the distinction between a webtoon and webcomic since not everyone is well versed on this topic. AquilaXIII (talk) 8:50, June 1, 2018 (UTC)
@AquilaXIII: What kind of reliable sources are you using for your definitions of these words? Hiveworks never uses the term "digital comic" (only "webcomic"), and I would say that webtoons are actually way more different from comic books than other webcomics are. I haven't seen many webtoon-to-comic-book adaptations either, while these are very common for western webcomics. ~Mable (chat) 12:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Maplestrip: What I meant is that the comics on Hiveworks would be considered digital comics rather than webcomics and that the site uses the term webcomics as a general term to refer to any comic released digitally online as do some people. The source that I mainly fall back on is the page for digital comic. Since the page exists and both it and the page for webcomics make a distinction between the two, that is why I also do the same. Many comic readers have also had this argument as well and whenever comics books that are released digitally are ever dicussed in news or articles, they are referred to as "digital comics" rather than "webcomics". You can see that here with articles from Comic Vine, Publisher Weekly, and PCMag. And on webtoons, since they are a relatively new concept in the West, there aren't any Western webtoons that have been published in print yet. The first website that introduced webtoons outside of Asia didn't launch until 2014. This is different for Asia where many Korean and Japanese webtoons get published. Even English translated webtoons have also gotten a release here. AquilaXIII (talk) 22:32, June 1, 2018 (UTC)
In my experience, all webcomics are automatically digital comics (as in, "webcomic" is a subset of the broader term "digital comic"). Publications like io9, Paste Magazine, and PC Magazine don't differentiate between long-form and short-form webcomics at all, and publications like io9, Comics Beat, and Entertainment Weekly describe webcomic comic books as webcomic comic books, while using the term "Digital comics" for entirely different types of works. A lot of the sources you linked are of the kind of American comic book company-owned platforms that I wouldn't consider "webcomics" either.
I don't think the two of us are going to come to an agreement about this, so I put a message on the much bigger Comics WikiProject. I hope we can figure this out ^_^;; ~Mable (chat) 10:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It's been my experience that webcomics are web-original content and digital comics are digital versions of print-original content. I've only encountered webtoons in some wikiarticles and press pieces on Korean (I think) comic hubs. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

My understanding:

  1. Webcomics are a subset of digital comics.
  2. "Digital comics" is commonly understood to refer to non-webcomic digital comics.
  3. Webtoons are a subset of digital comics.
  4. Some webtoons are webcomics.
  5. Some webtoons are non-webcomic digital comics.
  6. Some webcomics are webtoons.
  7. Some webtoons are what would be commonly understood as "digital comics" (see points 2 and 5) while some are not (points 2 and 4).

Is there any disagreement with any of the above points? Oornery (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Maplestrip:, @Argento Surfer:, @Oornery: Sorry for the late response but yes, I agree with Oornery's list and points. And as for Maplestrip's point of never having "seen webtoons as non-webcomic digital comics before", that's mainly because that is just starting to happen outside of Asia. In Korea, all manhwa are released as webtoons now while here in the U.S. many still make webcomic webtoons instead of non-webcomic webtoons. AquilaXIII (talk) 8:00, June 24, 2018 (UTC)

Joey Manley Good Topic WIP

Hi all, I've slowly been working towards this WikiProject and my first Good Topic. I believe I've now reached the limit of how much I can do on my own, but we're getting pretty close:

edit | discuss
Joey Manley
5 articles
Modern Tales
Serializer.net
Girlamatic
Webcomics Nation

I have a few things I will need help with from here on out. First of all, obviously, Joey Manley, Girlamatic, and possibly Modern Tales need GA reviews. Of course, I would love to do GA review trades, if anyone is interested. Moreover, Modern Tales in particular has a list of magazine and newspaper articles on its talk page. I don't have access to any early 2000s print sources, so if anyone here does, I would absolutely love to see them. Lastly, I am having difficulty expanding Serializer and Webcomics Nation any further. These two subjects clearly have less sources available than the others. If anyone here is interested in working with me to bring these articles to GA in any way, I would be most happy. Thank you all! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: I got the Sunday Times article! Linked it on the Modern Tales talk page. I may be able to get some of the others as well later this week, so if you (or anyone else reading this) wants any other specific print sources, let me know! Oornery (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
That's a really great find, Oornery (talk · contribs)! Thank you for working on this. These sources really make the difference. I don't really know where good print sources for Serializer.net and Webcomics Nation may be available, but those do have the most pressing need for more sources. I only knew about the Modern Tales sources because those were already listed in the article when I rewrote it. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Partnership with WP:Discord

Hey all!

There was some chat between myself, Maplestrip, and Oornery on the server. We think we would like to have our own channel there to discuss wp:webcomic-related tasks. Does anyone else have thoughts on this matter? ​ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be discussed on WP:Comics? ferret said he'd consider a wpcomics channel. Oornery (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Oornery: this is an astute observation. My bad there. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Having never seen a hidden ping before, I was very confused for a few minutes. Thanks for keeping me updated during my wikibreak MJL! ♦AcoriSage 17:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
​It's pretty dang cool if you ask me. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I would certainly be interested in a Webcomics channel on Discord. I guess we have to ask the people over at Comics whether they are interested in being represented as well per ferret's request, though I personally don't have much interest in that topic. I'll make the post there :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Mable: Sounds good! Sorry again about the confusion. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"[Year] in webcomics" criteria for inclusion

For the pages like 2016 in webcomics:

  • Webcomics with pages, obviously, meet inclusion criteria (assuming the page meets notability requirements).
  • I think webcomics that don't have pages but do meet WP:GNG are fine to include too. Should they have citations to prove notability?
  • Does having a notable creator, in itself, qualify a webcomic for inclusion?

Oornery (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I have created those list by the criteria that either its creator or the webcomic itself should meet notability guidelines. In practice, this would mean that every entry in the list has a wikilink, be it a redlink or not. I don't think citations to prove the notability of redlinked entries is needed, but it would be advantageous. These lists can serve as "articles for creation" opportunities, after all. One thing we may need to worry about is if a notable creator has made dozens of non-notable webcomics, or something along those lines. Not sure if that is an issue right now, though. The system certainly works out well for people like David Willis (cartoonist), Evan Dahm, and Mary Cagle, who each have around 3 major webcomics that they are known for. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite of the Webcomic Group's main page

I noticed it had been at least a year since the Webcomics Group main page had had a refresh. I've rewritten some stuff and moved some stuff around, to the following goals:

  • Moving information that a new user would need to the top of the page
  • Cleaning up the to-do list to remove things that aren't to do any more. For example, there is no Webcomics Portal any more.
  • Some simplifying of language, again for a new user, particularly around how to join the project.
  • Added the latest Good Article. Modern Tales got the tick last month!
  • Removed references to the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 project, which is not in operation.

Please let me know what you think, and if there's anything you don't like, please do change it back or discuss it here. HenryCrun15 (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The changes look good! Nothing I disagree with here, thanks for cleaning stuff up a bit :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
+1 –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The Webcomics work group has reached one of its goals!

It's been a goal of this project for some time to have 20% of webcomic articles be C-class quality or better. As of this comment, we have reached that goal! It is a tenuous crossing of the line for now, as even one new webcomic article would mean the percentage would go down below 20%. But I think it's achievable to keep the standard above this line.

I'd like to thank everyone who's ever improved a webcomics article. Every piece of work helped to get the quality of this webcomic encyclopedia up to where it is today. HenryCrun15 (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@HenryCrun15: I credit our patron saint Maplestrip with this amazing task (they did so much work to make this happen!!) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I am so glad this actually happened! Thank you MJL for the callout. I also decided on these two goals back in February 2016 myself. It took us nearly four years, but we're there now and ready to take on a new longterm challenge. I certainly never would have able to do this on my own! I do feel like this is proof that webcomics can be one of the exceptional subject matters of Wikipedia :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I've upped the ante! Let's see if we can get 30% of all articles in our project to C-class or better. This one will probably take us quite a few years, but I believe we will definitely reach it! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Excellent!HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Table Titans merge discussion

I started a merge discussion at Talk:Table Titans and invite you all to join me there if you are interested. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 18:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Line Webtoon, Naver Webtoon, and WEBTOON

This has been an undiscussed issue for years, but since KMWeiland (talk · contribs) moved a few pages and changed over 60 internal links on Wikipedia, I figured this was the right time to actually come to a project-wide consensus on this topic. I am personally definitely not fond of the "WEBTOON" monicker, in part because of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks and in part for the personal reason of being uncomfortable with Naver trademarking the word "webtoon" in any capacity. I kinda regret using "Line" back in the day, as I would usually go for the original name of the website ("Naver"). I was curious about what you all think of this though. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I searched through the Manual of Style, and the guidance was vague, but it did generally rail against overspecific formatting of brand names. I think writing it as "Webtoon", like every news site that talks about it, would be right. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
But webtoons are something separate from the website. Naver doesn't own the whole concept of webtoons. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Seeking review of Lore Olympus

I've had a go at improving the quality of Lore Olympus. Would someone be willing to review the article for quality? I think it's at least a C-class now, and could be a B if the plot and characters section is brought under control.

I used to send assessment requests to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment but it seems to have been dead for some time. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I really like where this article is going! I think it still needs some work to reach B-class, though.
  • The simplest improvement is a fair-use image or two. I'm happy to add one myself if you want me to, though I haven't actually read this webcomic, so I might not be able to add the best possible image.
  • The list of characters is an eyesore to me. Personally I'd cut out the "Minor characters" section completely and would try to trim the "Major characters" list to less than ten characters. Leave the full list of characters to Wikia.
  • The Reception section could use some more perspectives. Right now you have wo paragraphs each representing one review, and a paragraph representing fan reaction (which is difficult to do, and I'm not sure if Critical Darlings is a reliable source). It would be really nice if you could cite at least one more review here, perhaps in the same paragraph as the The Beat review.
  • You could possible combine "Format", "Artstyle", and perhaps "Influences", into one big section, like "Development".
@HenryCrun15:I really like the way you did the plot section and the Reception section (though that one can use expanding). It's a really nice article, good work! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the review and edit! I've added an image, removed the minor characters section, and played around with the layout of the rest. I'm not sure what you mean by the reviews though; the Dail Dot review and the Beat review are different. I'm tempted to cut the "fan" paragraph - it was written by someone else who was citing personal Tumblr pages.I removed the unreliable sources but instead of removing the material, marked it as citation needed. Not sure that was right.HenryCrun15 (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@HenryCrun15: Yes, this is looking good! For the reception section, I'd suggest trying to find more reviews. Just two is a fairly low number. Removing the badly sourced fandom reception is definitely a good idea. I understand why it's there, but it's hard to decide on what is worthy of inclusion. Rather leave that decision to the reliable sources we cite. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@Maplestrip: Right. I've added one more review and expanded some more out of a review that was already in there, and deleted review material that was unsourced (or previously sourced from personal Tumblr pages. This makes it some straightforward stats, two reviews from reliable sources, and two reviews that might or might not be reliable. There are other reviews you could add - Sequential Planet may be a more reliable source? - but I couldn't find negative reviews on plausibly-reliable platforms so there's not much point adding more of the same view. Within these was also more description of the story so I replaced "cite by linking to the main page of the comic" with these. I think I'll leave it here now. If you think the extra changes bring it to B quality, or if you think you can add any more, please do. In any case I'm pleased with the improvements we've made. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
You definitely did great work here. The reliable sources are indeed a bit difficult to figure out. Sequential Planet does look more reliable than Love in Panels!, even just because I can find the founder on LinkedIn. First-name only is not the best sign for determining a reliable source. As for negative reviews, you very rarely find those for webcomics, as there isn't much of a point to doing so. Webcomics tend to be free and are reviewed more as hobbyist projects. I think it's fairly close to B-class; I'd be alright with it being promoted :) 2A02:A455:4D78:1:CCB4:F7A4:6D22:77F (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Webcomics/Archive_6&oldid=1083422759"