Talk:Webcomic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Non-english webcomics[edit]

I saw the {{geographical imbalance}} tag "This article may not provide balanced geographical coverage on the region in question." I see no discussion here on the Talk page, but I do agree that the article is almost entirely about online comics in the Anglo-saxon language sphere and neglects European (non-English) and Asian work.

Therefore I started the section Non-english webcomics with an example of one German comic.

I know nothing about the history of online comics outside of what I read in the French and German articles and faint memories of Compuserve comic forums (possibly German around 1995). Nevertheless I added inside html comments the following very rough skeleton that could be expanded to cover the French.

A section on the different developmental path that French "webcomics" took could be added here. Paraphrasing http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bande_dessin%C3%A9e_en_ligne:
Comics in the French language appeared online very hesitantly: 1997
Bande dessinée interactive?
first (shortlived?) appearance at Angoulême International Comics Festival;
existing print-comic publishers show limited strips on their web-portals (Fluide Glacial);
group of illustrators launch BDAmateur 1998;
2001 "Lapin by Phiip first french online comic strip"?
...
Anglosaxon and Asian regions clearly ahead;
claims on line comics in Korea represent a quarter of the cartoon market!
2005 revitalisation of francophone comics: Blog BD (mixed set of graphic novel fragments, illustrations, sketches, popular as, but different from US-webcomics);
contrary to rest of world French comics online return to the traditional printed paper style;

I would be interested if anyone could expand this section for several other languages and cultures, for example where are Japanese and Korean webcomics mentioned (apart from eigoMANGA)? 84user (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding content about non-English webcomics seems a worthy goal, but the current state of this section is not ideal. A list of non-English webcomics isn't the way to go - we don't have a list of English language webcomics in the main article, and how would one decide which comics to include and which to exclude? If someone can find a good source for analysis of such comics, that would be great. Right now, though, we've got a grab-bag of comics - hardly encyclopedic. Fasrad (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@ 2400:AC40:620:AB64:983E:A1E6:73D9:B26A (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated the section I started in 2008, now named Non-anglophone webcomics. My contribution was not a list, those were added later. I agree with discouraging list-type entries, but not prose sections. Please note this English wikipedia article still suffers from the usual {{geographical imbalance}} remarked upon in 2008. For those that can read French, w:fr:Bande dessinée en ligne shows the kind of balanced coverage we should be aiming for. -84user (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship[edit]

Well I added this:

France:

"In France Comic Blogs are thriving. There are now festivals dedicated to webcomics like the Festiblog. Even at the famous Comic Festival of Angoulême, comic bloggers are present and award the price of the best webcomic. France is a country with a strong tradition in comics but there seems to be a place left for bloggers who represent the new generation of comic authors. A good example is Boulet, who started with a blog and who's publishing his second album of webcomics now: Bouletcorp. Here's a list of established and less established French webcomics: Frédéric Boilet, Guy Delisle, Lucille Gomez, Nicoz, Clément Oubrerie, Paka, Pluche, Lewis Trondheim, Wayne, Blog de la Mirabelle, Le repaire de Lommsek... This is only a short selection and some of these blogs have an audience of 30,000 readers/day, others of 200 readers/day, but their diversity reflect the broad range of webcomics in a French comic environment in constant evolution. Some of these webcomics are mixed genres. Using the freedom of a blog some authors mix comics, photography, videos, texts, but essentially these blogs are webcomics."

But it was censored because the links (in bold) are considered spam!!! Unbelievable. I'm done here. I don't feel like working for nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamirabelle (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

adding an external link[edit]

Would it be relevant enough and not considered spamming to add an external link for a webcomic artists's discussion forum? There is resourceful information about creating and making a business of webcomics at this website. I've read the external links rules and I can't seem to figure out whether this would be considered spam since it is of assistance and provides information. Thanks for your help! Wendyannee (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authority for "first online comic"[edit]

T.H.E. Fox has the assertion of being the "first known online comic" based on a statement by T Campbell of Penny and Aggie. Is this person's statement something we can consider a reliable source? GreenReaper (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, by the looks of things all that means is that it's the earliest he personally knows, and it's probably the earliest he knows because he looked it up on Wikipedia and it's the earliest given in this article. Blackbirdz (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Do you think there is anyone who can make such a statement, then? I mean, he wrote A History Of Webcomics, so I'm not sure who else to look to (I've emailed him asking for clarification on where he got the information). Note that the article was just created, although it's true that a previous version existed. GreenReaper (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, this isn't the type of thing anyone can know for sure, and the source says as much. Blackbirdz (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. We can't say for sure that it is the earliest online comic. But I dropped him an email, and he pointed out this quite reasonable point:
At this writing, I can't find anything earlier than, or contemporary with, *T.H.E. Fox*.

I think it would be extremely unreliable to claim *T.H.E. Fox* as "the
earliest online comic," but unless someone steps forward to offer up an
earlier example, it makes sense to call it "the earliest known."

When I wrote and published *A History of Webcomics*, I didn't know
about *T.H.E. Fox.* My earliest "online comic" citation then (not counting some
forerunners that weren't really comics) was *Where The Buffalo Roam* from
six years later. After my publication, a reader turned me on to some of the
creator's interviews and I realized there was enough to verify his 1986 claim.
We are not experts, and so are not in a position to make such a claim. That's his job, and fortunately he did it, the claim was published, and he confirmed it in that email. Another site made the same claim. Until someone comes along to make a different claim - or he gets back with something different; he said he'd take another look - it's the earliest known by reliable sources. GreenReaper (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, just got done writing only to get an edit conflict. Well, here it is anyway...
We could bicker all day about the possibility that an earlier comic may turn up, but that argument could apply to any claim of being the first at anything. This is why I said that it is the first known, instead of flatly saying that it is the first. Considering that T.H.E. Fox has been deleted for more then 2 years, I seriously doubt that T Campbell is basing his claims on Wikipedia. "this isn't the type of thing anyone can know for sure" Then how do we know anything is the first for sure? This seems rhetorical. T Campbell is the author of A History of Webcomics as GreenReaper pointed out and noted for being a webcomic historian (hence the title of his book), someone who can credibly make the claim that it is the first known and as such does not make the claim that none may exist before it. If not, then who, or what kind of evidence is needed to make such a claim? Guinness? RP9 (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the argument could not apply to "being the first at anything." Things that are important firsts are recorded when they happen and are indisputable. This is simply someone saying it's the first they know of, and that's not the same as being the first anyone knows of, and that type of thing shouldn't be put in encyclopedia articles. It's enough to say, as THIS ARTICLE does, "Among the earliest online comics were T.H.E. Fox." THIS ARTICLE. Not the deleted one somebody has recreated. And fwiw, this T Campbell? "T. Campbell. ... is most certainly NOT a 'World-reknown webcomics historian.' He knows it, you know it and Antarctic Press knows it. To print that is a false statement. If T. Campbell is a 'world-reknown webcomics historian' then I'm a 'world-reknown fitness expert.' They knew they were lying. They printed it anyway." So says Scott Kurtz. [1] Blackbirdz (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you never answered my question. "If not, then who, or what kind of evidence is needed to make such a claim?" The way "things that are important" are recorded can always be disputed. This is why the argument can apply to anything. What Scott Kurtz was saying was mostly criticism of T. Campbell book (which does not mention T.H.E. Fox) and that he should not claim to be world-renown, because he is not and I do not think anyone here said he was. But this is not just "someone" and denying his credibility with something Scott Kurtz said would seem to be just as as much of an unreliable claim to you then the claims T. Campbell is making. In fact, this is not even what I said. I said he was "noted for being a webcomic historian" not that he was a "World-[renown] webcomics historian". RP9 (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I already answered your question: "this isn't the type of thing anyone can know for sure." Nobody knows everything that happened on Compuserve or The Source or the like back in the'70s, and so we shouldn't use a single unreliable source that is likely getting his information off Wikipedia as a source for such an unreliable claim. Clearly, if someone traded a comic on the net in the late '70s, then someone knows it, even if we don't, so it is improper to call this "the first known" with just a single, disputed, unreliable source. The best we can say is what this article has said for 4 years -- that this is an early online comic. Blackbirdz (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, your saying that there is no way to know for sure, no matter what source is used? Claims to being the first known are made a lot. Are you saying that none of such claims can ever be proven? If say The Guinness Book of World Records were to publish that this is the first known online comic or even that it is the first online comic, would you say that is unreliable? When I said first known, in an encyclopedic sense, this would mean the first known by experts in that particular field or that history would tell. This would seem to be the way it is used elsewhere. Also what makes you think T. Campbell got his information off Wikipedia? The source was published while the article was deleted since January of 2007. And even when it was not deleted its claim to being the first did not last long, as it was not properly sourced. I an not sure where your going with this other then to discredit T. Campbell reputability instead of explaining why this particular claim may be unreliable, say for instance someone mentioning that his claim about T.H.E. Fox is not representative of other webcomic historians or simply incorrect about it in some non-speculative way. After looking over it again, I don't think T. Campbell's claims mean nothing, but I am not sure whether it is enough to make such a claim. I would like to know what you think is. RP9 (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This information has not been deleted since January of 2007. As I said earlier, which you can read below, this article, the webcomic article, the article whose talk page we are having this conversation on, has apparently said "Some of the earliest online comics include T.H.E. Fox [from] 1986" consistently since 16 November 2005.[2] That is, Wikipedia had this information 3 years before your source, which suggests to me that your source probably got it off Wikipedia. Blackbirdz (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my misunderstanding, I thought you meant he based it directly on a claim on Wikipedia. But then, what makes you think he did base it solely on this information on Wikipedia? RP9 (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect your source got the information about this comic off Wikipedia because Wikipedia had the information for several years before your source did, and I find it more plausible that he looked it up on Wikipedia than that he, independent of Wikipedia, just stumbled upon the information all by himself one day while he just happened to be in The Commodore 64/128 RoundTable on GEnie. Blackbirdz (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I knew about T.H.E. Fox without gleaning it from Wikipedia. In fact, I never knew it was mentioned on this article until you pointed it out. Are you suggesting that T. Campbell's knowledge of webcomics and the like are solely or primarily based on Wikipedia? Despite whether he found it here first or not, are you saying that he put no other research into it? And if so, what evidence do you have that this is the case except that it happened to be on here before the source was published? RP9 (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he doesn't read Wikipedia, he should, because it has information three years before he does. And you say you haven't read this article; I have no idea why you've been engaging in a conversation about it then, and I have no idea why I'm wasting my time talking to someone about an article they haven't even read. Blackbirdz (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly? Were discussing the authenticity of a source on the T.H.E. Fox article and it is certainly not mandatory that I read the entirety of any associated parent Wikipedia article that I happen to be talking about as if Wikipedia was the only source for such information. You are saying that T. Campbell should get his information from Wikipedia but you are saying that if he does he is not a reliable source, where are you going with this? The fact that it was on Wikipedia beforehand is irrelevant because the whole idea is that this information was researched, not just pulled off Wikipedia. I would be more concerned if this source popped up immediately after it appeared on Wikipedia because that may indicate that it was not researched. To be honest, I do not see any founding that he is an unreliable source, you are not answering any of the valuable questions that I have asked and on the contrary, I feel that you are wasting my time. RP9 (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, honestly, I thought you might consider reading this article before commenting. I'm not sure why you are so confused. What I am saying is that, as evidenced by the information posted here from Scott Kurtz and Jon Rosenberg, YOUR SOURCE IS UNRELIABLE. He is less reliable then Wikipedia, as Wikipedia has key information for several years before he has it. Yes, therefore, if he were to read Wikipedia more often, he would become a much more reliable source than he is now; however, he would still not be a reliable enough source to use him for information in Wikipedia about all that is "known," and especially not this type of debatable information. Blackbirdz (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was never confused about what Scott Kurtz and Jon Rosenberg said. I was only confused about why you think T. Campbell based this on Wikipedia, which seems completely unfounded beyond speculation. I think regardless of T. Campbell's reliability, revising my opinion, that in order to say it is the first known (remember, in the among experts sense) there should be at least two different sources that say that it is the first known. Finding sources for T.H.E. Fox is not easy, because Google makes no differentiation between "T.H.E. Fox" and "the fox" and I had hoped T. Campbell's word would be enough. We are running out of screen here, so I hope you feel that this would be enough. RP9 (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as whether he's getting his information of Wikipedia, if he isn't he should be! Looking through this article's history, Dragonfiend added "Some of the earliest online comics include T.H.E. Fox [from] 1986" on 16 November 2005.[3] According to Amazon, Campbell's book (where he thought the first online comic was from 1992!) came out on June 14, 2006. I think it's hilarious that this 'World-reknown webcomics historian' is at least 8 months behind Wikipedia in his knowledge of Webcomics! Blackbirdz (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eight months really isn't long enough, unless you live on Wikipedia and print your books via Hulu. Campbell started writing what would become a book in 2003, as a series of articles for Comixtalk. He went to the effort of asking for feedback when updating them - although in this case all he got (in May 2005, half a year before that edit) was a complaint that anyone was writing a history in the first place. Was his research perfect? Obviously not, and he knew it, given the version number at the top of the book. But he corrected himself with the Newsarama article. If Wikipedia accepts his work as valid - and apparently it's willing to - I think it's reasonable to accept a later version.
Not every first of significance - or even of interest - is hailed with a choir of angels. For every "first web page", there are plenty of "first [X in an area that never became significant]". However, if it wasn't of interest now, nobody would be writing books or articles about it. As for "among the first" . . . if we were talking six months, I could kinda see your point. But this is over five years before any other proposed online comic. It's not "among the earliest". It's far and away the earliest that we currently know of from any verifiable source, and we should make this clear. Implying anything else misrepresents the facts. GreenReaper (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, we absolutely should not write this based on a single extremely unreliable source. Blackbirdz (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find this way too amusing and ironic not to point out. Read the last part of Scott Kurtz's post here. (I can't copy it all here) He says "I think I would just let everyone tell their own story, even if they overlap and contradict each other. The contradictions would at least be compelling." and then goes on to say "Maybe it's something that should be more open-source and wiki-like than something that reads like a term paper." Sense the relevancy of all this? :) RP9 (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here's another view on the reliability of this source. Jon Rosenberg writes: "some fairly major chronological errors ... absolutely retarded ... my faith in his research abilities is pretty slim ... he is not concerned about accuracy ... He is not concerned when he steals ideas from people and posts them without credit." [4] Blackbirdz (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animated webcomics[edit]

I feel that Mark Fiore's work isn't a good example of an animated webcomic. Fiore's output doesn't feature any of the typical hallmarks of a comic, online or otherwise, such as speech bubbles or, more importantly, panels. On his website, Fiore's output is described as 'Newstoons', implying an identification from the producer's point of view with animated cartoons, while his Wiki article describes him as a 'political cartoonist', rather than a webcomic creator (though he was included in Ted Raill's Attitude 3, a summary of the latter genre). If anything, I would suggest that Fiore's work is more akin to motion comics than a webcomic; but that's my own opinion, which could easily get everyone into an exercise in genre-definition, which would probably get us nowhere fast.

I'm definitely not saying that Fiore is unworthy of inclusion in Wiki or even the webcomics article (in case any thinks I am) - but I do feel that a better example of an animated webcomic, rather than a flash-animated political cartoon, could be provided in the article. Perhaps other examples can be found and added, at least? Visual Error (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a suggestion for another, better example of a webcomic artist that incorporates "animations or even interactive elements" in their work, you should name them and the supporting reliable sources. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
K, Starblueheather, I'll see what I can find and post suggestions here. Visual Error (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One suggestion:
  • Argon Zark! - referred to on its wiki article as one of the first comics to incorporate interactivity and animation. Lots of references on that page, but online ones are as follows:
Another suggestion:
  • The Boy with Nails for Eyes - no wiki article for this one, though it has positive cites from external sources - not sure which, if any, count as reputable (this was one of the comics mentioned in an earlier version - couldn't find cites for the other):
  • [5] Comic Book Resources
  • [6] Comixtalk
  • There's also a postive article on Examiner.com, but when I tried to save with an inline link, the update was blocked as the domain appears on the wiki blacklist. I gather from this on the blacklist talk page that Examiner may well be removed from the list, so I'll try to re-add it later (though I may well forget)
Thoughts? Would either of these be suitable? I think it's best to get consensus on this before posting to the main article Visual Error (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Argon Zark has good refs like Scott McCloud's Reinventing Comics, so that looks like it could be a good example to include along with Mark Fiore's comics. The other does not look to have very good references at all so wouldn't belong here. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


"The WackyCrackHeads" was doing this in 1995, with quicktime, flash, java, javascript in the middle of the strip, or at the end, see the section below for links and references.

Single Asian Female[edit]

Found a source about Single Asian Female:

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the WackyCrackHeads (first interactive and animated webcomic)[edit]

This page does not include the WackyCrackHeads. It was not only the first colored (in color) webcomic on the internet (in Jan 1995), it also coined the term Hypertoon, was also the very first to use many of the newly available HTML features for WWW Developers, including tables, server-push animation, quicktime [[7]], shockwave [[8]], java applets [[9]], embedded sound [[10]], javascript [[11]] and user-interaction via perl driven web forms (user's could add their name and comments to the scrolling LED Java Applet in the Hypertoon "the Church of $cientology") [[12]]. It was thus also the first interactive and animated webcomic online.

The WackyCrackHeads has now been deleted from this page 4 times in the past 4 days amidst cries of vandalism. Having a hard time recovering the MN Daily article, and the refs to the site are all links from early user sites like The WELL, MINDVOX, and ART CRIMES which I suppose you do not considered credible. Considering the highly alternative nature of the content, most of the attention the site received was direct user feedback (including comments posted by R.U.Sirius Ad Rock and others), finding what you might consider "RELIABLE" sources to quote except from the site itself, user pages, wikis, links, and the dates written in the actual artwork is difficult given the time expired since it's occurrence. The wayback machine didn't start collecting pages until 1996 where you can see snapshots of content that had by then been online for more than a year.

Another point to mention is that the WackyCrackHeads was also a featured comic of David DeVitry's Webcomics.com which was a 1996 anthology of webcomics online which ran for a few years but is also missing from this page.

That's great and all, but there are no reliable sources that have been provided to verify any of this. If reliable sources are that hard to find, it's likely not notable enough to include as an example of early webcomics, as it isn't an iconic example of one. Simply existing early isn't enough. Being an early webcomic isn't the same as being a notable early webcomic. - SudoGhost 07:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm clearly not writing that it is notable for its simple existence, but rather providing its notability lies in both its timeline and its innovative use of the format for furthering the medium through experimental use of web technologies, animation and user interaction as written above.
Furthermore, this does belong on this page as it was the first interactive and first animated webcomic. Go ahead and try and find somebody else claiming to be the first interactive comic or partially animated comic, because you're not going to find them. At the time, there were less than 50 online comics and of those, nobody else will make this claim that they were the first to do any of the stuff the WackyCrackHeads did, because it simply didn't happen. It's a simple matter of historical accuracy.
A quick Google search of "first interactive webcomic" comes up with a few claims, actually. There is no "burden of disproof" on Wikipedia, information must be supported by reliable sources. Inserting your own webcomic into a Wikipedia article is a conflict of interest, especially if there are no reliable sources to support your claims. Without reliable sources, your claim cannot be inserted. Please take a look at WP:V. Thank you. - SudoGhost 14:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well that's probably the problem. A quick google search does not a fact make. Additionally, the 33 results from google for "first interactive webcomic" refer to The Black Tower; published in 2008 and Sarab.co (in Lebanon) in 2011. Please cite your claims in talk.
That's exactly the point. Their claims have exactly the same amount of validation yours does, zero. That's why reliable sources are required, to verify it. - SudoGhost 14:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And it's exactly *my point* that a quick google search will turn up nothing. But an extended, intentionally directed google search will enlighten completely.
Whois record for interverse.com | whois.domaintools.com
Created on Jan. 24, 1995 and Expires on Jan. 25, 2014
Whois record for dross.com | whois.domaintools.com
Created on Oct. 20, 1995 and Expires on Oct. 19, 2012.
Whois record for wackycrackheads.com | whois.domaintools.com
Created on Mar. 26, 1996 and Expires on Mar. 27, 2013
Now look at http://www.solscape.com/humor/cartoons.html and scroll down to the bottom where it says The Wacky Crack-Heads! you'll see the link points to Interverse. Indeed, the comics were on interverse before even dross or wackycrackheads.
Now look at http://www.well.com/~ivanski/viewmovie/viewmovie_sites.html and see that in both April and May of 1995, The WackyCrackHeads included webcomics using QT with animation.
I'd really like to see your search results showing that there were other claims to "first interactive webcomics" or webcomics with animation before April or even within a decade of 1995. Unless your point was just that you are directly lying and fabricating info and thus accusing me of same. Considering the artwork with dates drawn into them, internet archives, links from similarly ancient web artifacts and those lousy disreputable DNS records, I'd like to suggest you re-examine your motivation for removing the edits from the article.
--HansOg (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That only verifies that a website existed, and something existed there. Not what it was, what it was the "first" of, or that it was notable. That's why reliable sources are needed. - SudoGhost 15:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussed above why being the first animated/interactive webcomic is notable. The link from the WELL shows it was on the page in April of 1995. And here's a Wayback Machine view of the one of the same from a couple years later:
http://web.archive.org/web/19971120184544/http://www.dross.com/wackycrackheads/PG/psychogoose.html
The dark spot in the middle is where the quicktime is embedded in the source: <embed src="http://web.archive.org/web/19971120184544/http://www.dross.com/wackycrackheads/PG/media/goose.mov" hspace=0 vspace=0 autoplay=false controller=false width=156 height=131 VOL=3>
This really confirms the notability even more, noting that someone thinks the claim is so noteworthy that they can't believe it's true and is willing to reject all the data to deny it's inclusion on a wiki page. However, I can't help but wonder if this isn't just another example of moralistically motivated, socio-economic prejudice based on the title being "The WackyCrackHeads"? No worries though, I'm used to it...
SINCE 1995 BABY!!!
--HansOg (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're reading way too much into this. If something is inserted into an article, it needs to have a reliable source backing it up, that's the way Wikipedia works. Your information is unsourced. It doesn't matter how "noteworthy" it is or not, if it isn't reliably sourced, it doesn't belong in the article. Simple as that. - SudoGhost 18:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. Those linking sites, the dns records, wayback machine archives are all verifiable and reliable sources. If you really feel that being the first interactive comic on online in 1995 is not noteworthy, then why the google search in attempt dispel the claim and why the sarcastic language, "that's great and all", etc...
--HansOg (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's exactly the point, your claim is not the only one. There's no verification that your thing was the first, that is why reliable sources are required. - SudoGhost 19:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then why when I asked for your findings about it not being the only claim (of the 20th century), you didn't share? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HansOg (talk • contribs) 19:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because you had already commented on those claims, which aren't relevant here anyways. It doesn't matter if you're the only one that claims it. The burden is on you to prove what you're claiming. If there are no reliable sources verifying this, it isn't fit for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. It merely existing in a certain time period is not proof of this. - SudoGhost 19:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Admitted that it's besides the point. But, did you even check out the link on the WELL? Did you even check out the wayback machine for http://dross.com or http://www.WackyCrackHeads.com? Did you even check out the interactive/animated qualities of the site themselves as listed above? I'm disputing your sarcastic, dismissive and pejorative tone, "that's great", "your thing", "zero" etc, not your reasoning, besides where you claim it's not notable and then dispute the notability claim based on the one that you made saying that other sites make this claim too. Because that's just not true and hence suspect to inquiry. Just for posterity, please show us the sites that are temporally relevant (let's say 94-96) that also make this claim.

If it's besides the point, there's no point in discussing it, because it isn't related to improving the article, which is the purpose of an article talk page. If your webcomic is notable, find a reliable source showing this. If it was the first interactive comic, find a reliable source showing this. - SudoGhost 20:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's constructive because it's infinitely unlikely, but alternatively plausible, that of the handful of webcomics online in early 1995, one was also animated and interactive and we just didn't happen to realize that despite the logical conclusion. In which case, we'll stop making this claim regarding The WackyCrackHeads and thus the pursuit of it's inclusion on this page for reasons of notability!!HansOg (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Here's an article from Nov. 30th, 1995. http://wackycrackheads.com/mn/minnesota-daily-cover.jpg and http://wackycrackheads.com/mn/minnesota-daily-page11.jpg page 11 of the Minnesota Daily Student paper's Arts and Entertainment Weekly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HansOg (talk • contribs) 01:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]



  • Webcomic hosting sites?

Can someone write or link to an article on webcomic hosting sites? I know there are many of them now. Taptastic, ComicFury, probably a whole bunch of others.

Estimated number of webcomics[edit]

in the introduction to the article it says that there where an estimated 38,000 webcomics in 2007. The problem is in the source of this information. It is apparently a short blogpost by Joey Manley (I say apparently because it is no longer in the original website. the link, from 2009, does not work any longer. I read it on a blog archive). It makes some wild assumptions without any justification, and in the end he says himself that this is not a reliable estimate. this is a link to the post I am refering to http://archive.is/ZAFf . because of this I am going to eliminate the sentence. I would recommend replacing it with something like the number of webcomics listed in popular websites that manage webcomics, because without an original academic study I don't think an approximation is good enough to be posted on wikipedia. Melquiades Babilonia (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Webcomic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

I've removed the link to Yanapax, a reader application. Can't seem to find any sources that this one is more relevant than all the other. I don't see the relevance of this link anyway. Regards Knud Winckelmann (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Webcomic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Webcomic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Web Comic vs Webcomic[edit]

I've seen "web comic" used more in writing and usage than "webcomic" and it also seems correct to write them as two separate words like "graphic novel" than to combine them into one. I wanted to know what the majority of people on here believe before making any important moves. Should this page remain "webcomic" or should it be renamed to "web comic"? AquilaXIII (talk) 12:42, April 18, 2018 (UTC)

I feel fairly strongly about the use of 'webcomic' over web comic', as the former appears much more in reliable sources. A Google News search of "webcomic" gives five times more results than "web comic", and there are more book results for 'webcomic' as well. Going through some of the most commonly used sources for webcomics (listed here), you have sources like Comics Alliance, Comic Book Resources, Bleeding Cool, Newsarama, etc, etc, not to mention The Webcomics Examiner. Scott McCloud used "web comic" at least once in his 2000-book Reinventing Comics (though I had difficulty finding the term in there), but Ted Rall used "webcomic" throughout his 2006-book Attitude 3. Now, there are of course a lot more source to dig through. I think books about comics may be interesting as well when asking about this, but I feel like "webcomic" is in much more common usage. ~Mable (chat) 08:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maplestrip: The only reason I ask is because whenever the word "web" is used with a term as an adjective, it is always written as two separate words instead of a compound word. One good example is the term "web novel" which is written as two separate words instead of one. The same goes for the term "web fiction" which is not written as "webfiction". Digital Asian comics also do this when "web" is used as an adjective to refer to their own digital comics: web manga for digital manga in Japan and web manhua for digital manhua in China. "Webcomic" seems to be the only term that is spelled as a compound word unless there is an example of another term that does the same. Even then, there are still people who spell it as two separate words. It's for this reason that I lean towards renaming this page to "web comic" rather than "webcomic". AquilaXIII (talk) 08:49, May 31, 2018 (UTC)
If you want to suggest for Wikipedia to use the term "Web comic" rather than "Webcomic", I suppose it would be best to do so on the webcomic WikiProject or possibly even the comics WikiProject, as that would be a fairly significant change. You can write all of the examples you've given off as "other stuff existing", though. English can be oddly inconsistent with its terms, but I don't believe that is an issue. "Web comic" still redirects here, after all. I think we should follow WP:COMMONNAME and follow the majority of sources; do you have a few significant sources that consistently use "web comic" rather than "webcomic"? ~Mable (chat) 10:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should definitely stay with "webcomic" as one word, as that is by far the most common spelling of the term. Note that there are in fact many other compound words that also start with "web". For example, webcam, website, webcast, webmaster, and webmail. Clothanalyst (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First webcomic[edit]

Hello,

since the 11-year-old discussion regarding T.H.E. Fox above, the claim that Witches & Stitches was the first webcomic has appeared in the article. However, in his recent book Webcomics, Sean Kleefeld is skeptical of this claim, writing about Eric Millikin, author of Witches & Stitches:

"[...] however, there seems to be no surviving evidence of this, and, in an interview where he was expressly talking about his early comics-making experience, he talked about selling his early comics for a quarter apiece in his fourth-grade class, but made no mention of the internet."

The interview cited was apparently published in the book Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists by Ted Rall. Kleefeld awards to T.H.E. Fox the more measured claim of being "One of the earliest (often considered the earliest)" webcomic. Kleefeld's book seems to me more reputable than the sources cited here, who provide no argument for their assertions. I would just edit the article, but since the claim is also repeated in other places (History of webcomics, List of early webcomics, Eric Millikin, no further sources there except an assertion by Yahoo! Celebrity), and I'm more comfortable on German Wikipedia, I thought I'd ask for comments here first.

Thank you, --Linseneintopf (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed to distinguish from Digital comic[edit]

Hello, I have started a discussion at Talk:Digital comic#Clarification needed to distinguish from Webcomic which affects both articles. 93 (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Digital Media and Information in Society[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jinx Tunes (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Stevesuny (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Webcomic&oldid=1194443717"