Talk:Webcomic/Archive 1

889:

takes is in either a strip or page form, usually on a gag-a-day format." OK, so the simultaneously "prevalent" and "quintessential form is a) the strip, b) the page, or c) gag-a day. There can't be three prevalent forms. I also restored some of the examples you removed. Three example ought to be the norm. A single example does not adequately make a point. I know, a lot of the problems in this section where there whn you found it Kainee, but your edits seemed to be confusing matters rather than clearing them up. I think the Medium section is much clearer, tighter, and contains concrete examples now -- maybe we ought to look at the other sections and get them to be as tight and useful as Medium is now. For example, from the "Industry" section: "Recently, during a comic convention, Kurtz declared ..." When was recently? What comics convention? Who is Kurtz? Why does this sentence belong in an encyclopedia entry?

1560:

example, visiting www.onlinecomic.net will reveal that the most popular webcomics listed there are all that of "anime/manga" styles. A lot of the more popular webcomics themselves (PvP, Penny Arcade, MacHall, megatokyo) also share distinct similarities, particulally gaming references or use of the aformentioned anime/manga style. Very little variety seem to exist, and from my point of view, it appears as if many web comic creators are more tempted into doing stuff that'll make them popular and less about trying something new or creative. Therefore, it only helps breed more similarity and less originality. Similarlly, as there are a lot of web comics out there, quality of the story and artwork becomes an issue. The idea that "anyone can do a webcomic" serves as both a good and bad thing about webcomics.

2208:(Indented back a bit) My, that touched a raw spot. Nevertheless the impression is there, whether the sources are suitable as a basis for WP content. Truth and what is believed do not necessarily correspond and Wikipedians should be aware of what is being said, and debated in quite some depth. There is, no doubt about it, duff information being cited in some parts of that debate - for example I strongly suspect the Keenspot 'deletion' is a product of comments in a deletion debate about Darken that there _ought_ to be an AfD for Keenspot and/or the misinterpretation of the appearance of a {sources} tag on its article. I'm not sure why that bit of my post wasn't clearer about about what I had concluded and what was believed. Mea culpa, the only excuse I can come up with is the hour. 487:, an interview in which Joe Ekaitis confirms " Since 1986, because that was when I hunkered down and poured what little I have into T.H.E. Fox. It was originally uploaded to CompuServe, then Q-Link and finally, GEnie." On, a related note, considering how much debate there is over which comic was first, and how earlier and earlier ones keep cropping up, I think we ought to list "T.H.E. Fox" as "perhaps the first" or some such. I think with all of these early comics (Dr. Fun, T.H.E. Fox, etc.) their start dates may be verifiable but whether they were "first" really isn't -- it's not verifiable that there wasn't someone else somehwhere in some corner of the internet posting comics earlier. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some ARPANET comic from the 70s or something. 502:

wrote.) One Doctor Fun cartoon was reprinted in The Maroon at the U of Chicago, but that was after it started. Several years before I started Doctor Fun all my work was freelance, mostly for magazines. Doctor Fun was intended at the time for online reading only - it was low resolution, 24-bit color - the resolution was too low for print, and almost nobody at the time was interested in color for printer, and not at 24-bit RGB. Ironically, I wasn't looking to have the first cartoon on the World Wide Web - the whole thing was developed to be posted to Usenet, and at the last minute somebody at my work showed me this new "web thing" and I was instantly hooked and retooled everything. David Farley

1177:

few problems with this section that I couldn't think of a good way to fix right away. In the first paragraph there seems to be some confusion between sites that offer hosting to artists for a fee (Keenprime?) and sites that offer subscriptions to readers for a fee (Modern Tales?) but I'm not familiar enough how either site works to clear this up. I also removed a paragraph about webcomics in newspapers because it was very imprecise ("recently ... it is assumed..."), only focused on one comic rather than webcomics as a whole, and contradicted waht was in the PVP article. I think a better paragraph about webcomics that have crossed over to newspapers and vice versa is probably needed.

2561:, that discusses the Webcomic community's frustration with the deletion of a broad spectrum of Webcomic articles off of Knowledge. Then you have the Webcomic page on Knowledge, a sister project of Wikinews. There is no irrelevancy at all to those two things. What is irrelevant is your argument "We should not be linking to every single news article tangentially related to Webcomics." One, we aren't doing that, we are linking to one. Two, it's hard to see a news item about Knowledge's guidelines for inclusion of Webcomics is not related to the Knowledge article about Webcomics. This is neither promotion, nor irrelevance, and I find your arguments nonsensical. -- 3060:, a humorous and witty way of saying I was removing the section about the boycott (to talk). I removed the boycott material because it did not sound like it involved a significant number of participants. (This may indicate that the extent of the boycott needs to be documented in the entry before it is added back to the article.) I'm not sure webcomics is the best place to put this material. Does it belong in the article about wikipedia since that is what is being boycotted or does it belong at the person who initiated the boycott? I see nothing at the article on the person who started the boycott but I just skimmed it when looking for it. 698:

neutral here)-- I just find the phenomenon really interesting so have read up on it. Would people please refrain from plugging their favorite "diamond in the rough" comic? I know that it is controversial to decide just who deserves mention but perhaps maybe the guideline for that is those comics and personages that really have contributed to the history and trend of webcomics in general? Not just a comic that catches your fancy and you think deserves more attention. I realize it's unfair but this is a general entry so I think mentioning the giants would be better than obscure examples... I'm mainly referring to instances like this:

1952:. If you felt the list to be too long, perhaps it would have been better for you to edit it down. I for one do not believe that wholesale deletions such as yours (even with "suggestions") do anything to improve Knowledge - especially when your suggestions are made only in the edit summary. This is what we have Talk Pages for. My flippant edit summary was a knee-jerk response to what I perceived as lazy deletionism, and was likely out of line. Sincerest apologies. And, as a purely personal aside not to be taken too seriously - If the print syndicates' standards are so high, why do I still have to glance over 3305:"Some successful webcomics have subsequently been reprinted in book compilations, often self-published. Examples of webcomics in print include PvP, Penny Arcade, Sluggy Freelance, and Megatokyo, as well as many others. Some webcomics, such as Helen, Sweetheart of the Internet, Van Von Hunter and Diesel Sweeties have been syndicated and published on daily newspapers' comics pages. Others such as The Perry Bible Fellowship and PartiallyClips have been published in smaller alternative newspapers, or printed in magazines, such as The Order of the Stick in Dragon Magazine and Get Your War On in Rolling Stone." 2299:

within the community. As for the small punk rock bands, it would be like if there were a litany of songs displaying their anger of the deletion of their pages. What I'm saying that it becomes a separate, cultural belief, and while my example seems brash, you have to realize that the connection is not necessarily the intensity of opposition, but the communal integrating- the flag-bearing togetherness caused by the event. Suddenly, instead of a bunch of guys and girls, they're unified because Knowledge is supposedly attacking them. If this isn't noteworthy, I don't know what is.

1382:

current incarnation) which start off with a particular "amateur" style and evolve as the skill of the artist/writer improves, particularly in terms of comedic content and subject matter. Somewhere I think an "evolution" section should be created that shows this. Also, it is very rare that an artist will go back to redraw some of his/her earlier strips. Video Game Cats (VG Cats) is an example where he has gone back to revisit some of his earlier strips to bring them up to date to match his existing style of artwork. I believe he even provides a link to the original strip.

2999:. It makes sense that wikipedia has articles about TV shows etc. but in general Knowledge is not a place to just copy in the things you've heard about on TV, and delete the things you haven't heard about on TV...just because the media does not validate something, does not mean that it is not a part of millions of peoples lives. Knowledge should be a place to find information that may be hard to find elsewhere...that's the point of having such a immense encyclopedia. The fact that the media ignores something that is somewhat notable should 2069:

photobucket/imageshack for the millions of images. Even though these are collections, they're still reference points and I'm sure if there was something that contained a review, interviews, stats, and an overview of subject matter of webcomics, there might not be such a debate over the whole thing. If wikipedia refuses to accept the concept that wikipedia could be the sole reference for webcomics due to the many critics and artists out there producing the darn things, then there ought to be a reference site for referencing the references. --

2248:

and people are questioning corruption, or snobbery, or what have you. What I am saying is that this is a notable aspect of the webcomic medium at large- Everyone in the webcomic community is talking about it, from authors, to readers, to the people who keep watch of the webcomic discussion in Knowledge. What I'm saying is that when someone searches Knowledge, and looks for this alien concept of "Webcomics" that they heard in a dream, it would be accurate to display this, in a totally neutral, totally informative way. --

1881:

equivalent of "syndicates" for established newspaper comics. True, it has been a spam magnet since I began monitoring this page, but myself and others have doen a fairly good job (IMO) limiting the list to only those webcomic companies and collectives that apparently warrant their own articles on Knowledge. So as per where this "too broad" stuff is coming from, I have no idea. I have no interest in edit warring and am letting your edit stand, but for your own future reference: Deleting something and then telling us to "

2511:, Wikinews should only be linked when we are discussing the event that Wikinews also discusses. We should not be linking to every single news article tangentially related to webcomics. This article does not discuss the Wikimedia fundraiser issue at all, so we should not be including the link to a news article that discusses that issue, and especially not at the very top of the article. The fact that the news article is from Wikinews is irrelevant; we are here to make an encyclopedia, not to promote Wikinews. — 2419:

evolution in webcomics, which have been through some stages or "Ages", a "prehistoric" stage between 1985-1993, a formative one through 1993-1999, a "golden age" (1999-2001), an expansion stage (2001-2004) and a decay stage (2005 onwards). The former being a propposal I came with last year based on factors like the rise and fall of communities, artwork quality, spread of internet and number of webcomics. But I can´t post it in the main article (or any) because it is original research.

31: 999:

to remove "fan bias," you've removed most of the concrete examples of the topics described, while adding references to the "fame" of your favorite webcomics artists. You've also added red and broken links. I don't think, as a whole, your edits have improved this article. I'd suggest starting with smaller edits first, rather than making large scale changes to this article. If you aren't familiar with infinite canvas comics, please don't edit the paragraphs about infinite canvas comics.

774:

Fans leads to stubs, for Argon Zark a page that is claiming to be the first comic and for Fetus-X, a page that is up for deletion. Perhaps leaving Cayetano Garza (as he seems a bit more well known) as the example of infinite canvas would be best. But I replaced Fetus-X with the better known Sexy Losers and I can also replace Argon Zark with Sluggy Freelance as that comic is known to experiment with animations and is really well known.

873:

parts of it. I think the problem is that Medium can be interpreted in different ways. As an art medium? As a medium of communication/mass entertainment? I would like to go with art medium as that seems to be the bulk of this section's focus. But the use of the Internet should be covered too. Perhaps some extra focus would be better if we approached this section in essay form and organize it accordingly? --

939:{This should be moved up and some people have never read any comic books, manga or graphic novel which is why I went to the pains of describing the page form more clearly. Referencing Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki and Rules of Make Believe are again examples of advertisements. There are far more well-known webcomics done in graphic novel form that can be cited if you insist on 3 examples.} 712:

split into chapters. SGVY is an example of a story-driven comic in the humorous vein with updates in multi-page eddas. Other comics in the chapter format include Wish³, which is also available in print, although it is more explicit than the webcomic and Okashina Okashi, which started as a daily gag-a-day strip with some plot, and in recent years, has changed to be more heavily story-driven.

475:"Where the Buffalo Roam" is listed as the first "online comic", but it was predated by Joe Ekaitis' "T.H.E. Fox" on QuantumLink, in the late 1980s, where it was advertised as the first online comic. I'd have to contact Joe to find out exactly when it started, and whether it was also distributed on the Internet before WTBR. If not, then WTBR may be the first "Internet comic" instead. -- 1073:

that was consciously derived from the western and eastern styles. Real Life probably not so much. Okashina Okashi is also known to have chosen the 2x2 format for much the same reasons as Megatokyo. So, in those two specific instances (with SP thrown in for a more popular reference), 2x2 definitely represents a mix of eat and west. That's why I included the caveat of "sometimes 2x2."

857:

understand webcomics but there should be a level of detail that to be decided on. How in-depth should this article be? I think that since the Medium section is the first section that it should be more general with the ensuing sections gaining more specific details-- sort of easing the reader into it, if you will. But perhaps this all can be solved with another re-structuring? --

2016:

in fact the method of distribution as opposed to being published on paper and then made available electronically. Perhaps "Online Comic" could refer to all types of comics that are available on line, but "web comic" referring to comics that are exclusively available on the internet. Though this would create a new category for comics that have bridged the gap, possibly. --

3414:, and was supported by a reference saying that "The National Book Award is the single most prestigious honor in American literature the first graphic novel to be nominated for the National Book Award in its more than half a century of existence." I've restored your removal. If there is a specific comic used as an example that is unsourced, then let's discuss that. -- 317:

calendar feature that Keenspot shares with Sluggy (also ex-BP) were BP innovations. I'm not really the one to write that up, though, as by the time I started reading webcomic Keenspot existed and BP had been reduced to an idiosyncratic top sites list—all I know about that stage comes from secondhand hearsay. The founding of Modern Tales might warrant a mention.

3179:

comic references. Rather than listing certain comics and then providing a comprehensive list under a "many others" link it should simply explain things here and list them there. Otherwise this article is a prime place for people to edit the comic references according to their personal tastes. I honestly feel like doing it myself. <_<;; --

2216:

partly because I am having real issues due to the trend of authoritative commentary to move from websites to question and answer sections on message boards and/or for previously unavailable but evidently authoritative information to become available on those mediums. BTW, NONE of these edits would be in the webcomics area. Sorry for the length.--

1832:. I'd quite like to be entertained by a webcomic or two. Can anyone recommend any I may be interested in given my previous favourites? The ones I've looked at so far fall into the "3 or 4 panel gag" format. I'd quite like something that is, yes, funny in parts - but doesn't feel the need to make me laugh all the time, or even primarily. 531:, an art and writing community website that's been around for a few years. I was wondering if it were possible that we get a small mention in the Webcomics article here at Knowledge because I believe we are a part of internet history. I've just unveiled a new webcomics section. It's a system specifically designed for sequential art. At 624:

alphabetical access, which makes it easy to check who is missing, fast, and what work needs to be done on them (such as googling them to see if they are notable, and preparing individual articles on them and/or their comics)and making a cross referecne to their comics, which may or may not be mentioned with them in the article. --

2212:

of 'webcomic community' rather than 'webcomic readership' was intended to cover those with a visible online presence and those that read artists news posts and commentators blogs, that is those who are actually involved and knowledgeable (and therefore potential WP contributors) rather than merely reading the comics.

2289:

you're someone like Paul Southworth or Gary Tyrrell, apparently. The way they go on and on, you'd think every article about every webcomic was purged in this last go-round - and we all know that's not true. There are still plenty of webcomic articles on WP - let's not lose all sense of perspective. --

3039:

When you say you are "boycotting the boycott" I assume you are hinting at the fact that the reason you removed the boycott from the article was not because you did not think it was applicable to the subject of the article, and not because it was original research or anything like that. I assume what

2984:

Personally I think that the reason all news of this boycott is being removed from wikipedia has nothing to do with whether the people censoring it out really think that it should not be part of an encyclopedia, I think the people censoring this out of wikipedia simply don't like the idea of a boycott

2764:

policy is/it doesn't exist) links to wikinews are at the top of the page, if they are extremely related to topic (aka an article on wikipedia about an incident, and a wikinews article about incident). If a section of article is on the same topic as the wikinews article then we usually put the link in

2434:

I know some of you have requested recommendations as to new comics to check out. You might be interested in a PCMag article describing their top ten web comics. "PC Mag Names Its 10 Most Awesome Webcomics: The Net is crawling with comics; some of them are worth reading and rereading, while others are

2329:

article is that we have several vocal webcomic advocates/creators, well... criticising Knowledge. But your argument's fair enough. However, I take serious issues with your elevating this issue to a "cultural belief", inspiring "flag-bearing togetherness", or that the community has been "unified" over

2247:

I think that a number of people are confusing what I've said to be a slight against Knowledge. What I meant that this is currently an issue. If you can tell by this page, there are a lot of opinions, feelings, and, I repeat, controversy. People are coming up with conspiracy theories about the matter,

2237:

So is the backlash against WP merely a by-product of an angry webcomic artist venting on his frontpage? Given the nature of the internet this isn't too hard to believe. However a small part of me has trouble totally discounting it all when 6 webcomics I read all had their wiki page deleted or tagged.

2163:

Reporting the loss of the majority of the webcomics community to wikipedia (it is, I fear, alas, as bad as this) in the article would be problematical for one of the reasons that significant webcomics come up for deletion with such ease - the main sources for webcomic reviews and reporting are blogs,

2150:

Unfortunately the view that there is a campaign going on has taken root amongst more than just those artist nominated for deletion. The newbies (including one or two recycles like myself) are just as, or even more likely, to have arrived on the back of coverage elsewhere. I have just been doing a bit

1797:

have been nothing but adding links to ComiAsia in various ways to various pages. The "mobile comic" article is highly suspect as well. Were this not blatant linkspam, this passage would still merit removal: I'd hardly say that the ability to view a webcomic on a mobile phone is a) unique to webcomics

1559:

Basically what criticisms I have of webcomics are as follows. While I do conceed that the internet is a great place to get one's own comic out that otherwise would be ignored by big publishers and the syndicates, it does also provide a breeding ground for generic, "cookie cutter" type web comics. For

901:

While many webcomics adhere strictly to the traditional newspaper or magazine format, some artists have taken advantage of the web's unique abilities. Scott McCloud, one of the first advocates of webcomics, has pioneered the idea of the infinite canvas, where webcomics (such as Cuentos De La Frontera

888:

I re-combined your two sections and edited them to be much tighter. The murkiness was from throwaway sentences like "In these continuity-driven webcomics, panels can vary in size and shape." In what comics can't the panels vary in size or in shape? "The prevalent form that the quintessential webcomic

702:

A prime example of this principle would be the latter-day installments of T Campbell's Fans, or Cayetano Garza's Cuentos De La Frontera, as well as several stories by Patrick Farley of e-sheep.com. Other artists have experimented with the incorporation of animation into their comics (although purists

393:

We need some clarification here. A change was just made that now iplies that a comic being published via Usenet/FTP is the "first webcomic". Is webcomic to include all protocols of distribution or is it going to be limited to comics published excusively in the web format (ie, presented as a web page,

357:

There are interviews with the creators, on Web only publications like the Webcomics examiner (webcomicsreview.com) , but also in Web "reprints" of paper publications looking at web comics. Most of these interviews have historical information. And there are also many reviews (in the same publications)

316:

is generally acknowledged as the first webcomic, so it definitely deserves a mention. As far as history goes, some mention should probably be made of Big Panda, which AIUI was the first dedicated webcomic hosting service, from the ashes of which Keenspot emerged. The standard navigation links and the

157:

Ah ok, gotcha. This is actually one of my first attempts to edit. But I think I'm done with this page now. I think I've put down all the info that I know to be accurate that I've picked up from lurking on webcomic forums. And sorry about accidentally deleting your little edits. I didn't mean to and I

3178:

I believe this entire article is bogged down with name dropping and image samples that are less than representative of the medium as a whole. I think that the article (especially the 'medium' and 'business' sections) should concern themselves with actual explanations and remove *ALL* their specific

2691:

Let me understand this: you don't want the article in period, so you are arguing that because that some in the Wikimedia foundation approached Webcomics about fundraising, and they found dissatisfaction in that community, and an article was written about that dissatisfaction and was mentioned in the

2625:

The problem was mainly that the link was given such prominence in the article, being one of the first things that readers see. Just because a Wikinews article talks about Knowledge doesn't mean that it should get that kind of prominence on Knowledge. To me, giving it that kind of prominence violates

2298:

I'm not even trying to go that far, and I don't thing that the topic really is so much as a criticism of Knowledge, as it is a flavor of the webcomics community. I mean, if you spend even a negligible amount of time going through webcomics, you would find at least one "recent" example of the concern

2227:

I'd have to agree with Antepenultimate, in my opinion this is not a good topic for the webcomics article itself. For us who are interested in webcomics it may seem that webcomics are being singled out by wikipedia's notability guidelines, but I'm sure there are other niche areas that feels the same.

2159:

Darken - Keenspot ricochet where the use of Keenspot to defend Darken an AfD on Keenspot Whatever the REAL motivation that looks like Bad Faith to someone who isn't following the detail of the discussions. Also note that whilst KEEP decisions on AfDs are all very well its the existence of the AfD

2101:

I'm not sure if it's what you're asking for RWilliamKing, but www.comixpedia.org is a wiki that has, as far as I can tell, no content policies regarding sourcing or neutral point of view or anything like that. It's generally where we move webcomic articles that don't meet Knowledge content policies.

2068:

Why hasn't there been a creation of an authoritative and comprehensive website for ALL webcomics? That way there would always at least be a referencable source for this compendium and would at least contribute to the acceptance of the webcomic media. After all, there's youtube for web video content,

1990:

I suggest we take the time to check the use of the words "web comic" and "online comic". I think it's important due to the level of controversy generated by using both of them as synonyms. "Online comic" by itself refers to every comic available online and "Web comic" refers to every comic available

1759:

who happened to draw multiple comics (a single entity does not a collective make). I left the Paperdemon link; however, I don't know if I should have, this reeks of linkspam. Seemed awfully NN to me. Especially since there's a post above begging for a mention on the page (saying that they are unique

1555:

I don't think a Knowledge article should be without some sort of criticisms section, although obvious excpetions apply. I particularlly believe that the webcomic section should have one. However, I'm no wikipedian regular, so I don't know how to start it, where to go with it, or how to make it NPOV.

1370:

No, Abrams generally uses a single image for each strip. That's true even when he does long form series like the recently concluded Oceans Unmoving. I'm aware of a few webcomics that do use individual images for panels -- the Gamespy comic Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth comes to mind -- but they're

1008:

As I've mentioned before, I'm not a particular fan of any webcomic. I just know that there are commonly accepted "famous" webcomics. Those are the ones I try to cite first before resorting to more obscure references. I did not mean to give the impression I was trying to play favorites. However, I do

966:

No, I agree that it's an important concept. What I was trying to say was that using the logic of being concise and brief where none of the details get mentioned, infinite canvas would be too detailed to include in such a brief summary. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. Did not realize a edit war

366:

Hey, I noticed there was an incomplete sentence so I tried to re-edit it to reflect what the original intentions were. But I don't like the vagueness of which comic is actually the first. So whomever has a better idea of what's accurate, please edit it with dates. Perhaps knowing the exact date each

137:

occurrence of a possible link term (in fact, many people believe that any given term should only be linked once per article). In a long, multipart article (like this one seems to be becoming), it can be okay to link something in one section that was already linked in an earlier section, perhaps; but

2346:

childish take on the whole thing, and I've also seen that PvP has done some sort of discussion on the matter. Oh yeah, and that rant at this year's WCCA "ceremony." Total time of the flare-up was about two weeks - with much of this "unified" action taking place in the form of poorly worded rants in

2288:

arguably relevant to Knowledge (though let's not get carried away - people's point of view (either as fans or creators) is truely magnifying these "controversies" way out of proportion). Were webcomics articles unduly targeted for deletion? Maybe. Is it really that big of a deal? Not really, unless

2215:

And its precisely because of the 'sources' issue (and one massive COI) plus the time spent tracking the webcomic and 'web sources' issues (I regard the two as being separate for all that webcomics are affected by the web sources issue) that you haven't seen any article edits from me so far. This is

2211:

As to sources, I went looking for what was being said online and undoubtedly the sources that comment on webcomics and WP are almost universally negative about WP. I used the blogs as a source for what was being said on those blogs, and therefore most likely believed by comics readers. And my usage

2015:

This seems to be a reasonable claim IMO due to the fact that an "online comic" can refer to the availability of a print comic being published on line, For Better or for Worse (fbofw.com) could be considered an example of this. I think the concept of a "webcomic" usually implies that the internet is

1690:

made a comic commenting about it. It's been placed in the community section and noted that it's new, as it sould be. Nobody else seems to have a problem with it, so unless you have some other reason for why this shouldn't be included, I don't see your arguement. And if you feel it lack sources, add

1601:

policies, go for it. However, what you've outlined above seems to your personal criticisms, and that would probably be inappropriate. If you could summarise published common criticisms of webcomics that have appeared in reliable sources, that would be appropriate. For the record, I don't think your

1405:

I also forgot to mention that sometimes the artists change their format as well, look at the renditions of "Diesel Sweeties" since comic #1 all the way through it's current inception in both print and web form. Layouts have varied, it is no longer the regular 2x2 format that R. Stevens started out

1176:

I've attempted to clean up what was formerly the "Industry" section. I changed the section to "Business" since "Industry" has more to do with the manufacturing of goods, where as "Business" seems to more accurately reflect the content of the section (how artists are making money). There are still a

1104:

I'm not sure if this is the reason for the animated speech balloons in Sam and Max cartoons or if it is a source of frustration for comic artists. I would have guessed they were meant to increase interaction between the reader and the comic, but that is pure speculation. I suggest removing the part

1043:

On the 4-koma thing: my point in including it is as a way of showing how web comics draw upon layouts and styles from outside their own culture. For example, Ghastly is Canadian but lays out his comic like a Japanese artist. I would say this is a significant demonstration of web comics assimilating

998:

Kainee, you now have, among other things, a "Form" section that talks about "exploring subject areas," "game-oriented comics" and "transsexual biographies." This is all content, not form. You also have a "Art & Media" section that talks about nothing other than clip art comics. In your attempts

946:

still do not agree then there's nothing I can do about that. The other sections need to be edited over too. I think I was reaching for material when I was filling out those sections since at the time, I was re-organizing the page and trying to fill out the newly made sections with the right info. --

945:

I'm not saying my edits are perfect but I am saying that editing to condense it so drastically is a disservice to the topic, especially when it doesn't even provide a good overview. I'm not trying to offend but I'm trying to show you my logic with why I respectfully disagreed with your edit. If you

773:

For the infinite canvas, there are 3 comics cited as examples. I find it suspect that there needs to be so many examples. Perhaps, the list of examples should be pruned at the very least. But I tend to think that the comics cited are for vanity's purpose. Clicking on the links like for T Campbell's

711:

Examples of this story driven chapter form include Rules of Make Believe (ROMB) and Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki (SGVY). The former uses an artistic style based on Chinese manhua, while the latter is heavily influenced by Japanese manga. ROMB updates one page at a time, though it is formally

3409:

I disagree. It seems as if every comic named here is notable, has a clear context that supports its relevance and importance to the article, and has a cited source as a reference. For example, the webcomic information you removed from the article is probably the best possible example of a webcomic

2696:

relevant to the article. The article is about efforts to fundraise being met with dissatisfaction with Knowledge by Webcomics, which makes it relevant to...the Knowledge article about Webcomics. Again, I find your arguments not making a whole lot of sense. Especially your last line of "unnotable

2140:

There is no spear-headed webcomics deletion campaign. Hundreds of articles on all sorts of topics are considered for deletion every day-- neologisms, bands, blogs, spam, drinking games, porn stars, webcomics, athletes, etc. If you came here from the blog of a webcomic artist complaining that their

1508:

I personally disagree with the term "sequential art", which reminds me of the ill-used term "graphic novel". The terminology is a hodgepodge of history and technology; a more logical description would be "graphic narrative", with individual issues called "graphic narrative magazines". Heck, that's

922:

Still, the most common form that a webcomic takes is the traditional comic strip, such as Penny Arcade, PvP, Sinfest, or CTRL-ALT-DEL. The gag-a-day comic strip lends itself easily to popular consumption as they are episodic in nature and do not require much foreknowledge of the comic itself. This

856:

I'm thinking that mostly it's the open canvas examples that you guys are worried over since I don't hear mention of the other examples I did delete. I do see your point on multiple examples but also at the same time, I think it can tend to clutter the page. Also, I realize that not a lot of people

797:

Yeah, he's an editor. If you read the page on him. But is he notable enough for his webcomic work to be cited as an example? Cat Garza seems to be more of a fixture as I've seen him cited more in context of his work. So, left him as the example... if you have a better idea of who is a good example

697:

I've noticed that some fairly obscure comics get mention in the main body of the entry and I find that the subtle advertising leads to too much of a bias to this article. I personally am not a comic creator or a fan of any particular comic (I don't have an obsession so I'd like to think I'm fairly

501:

I'm wondering where the idea came from that Doctor Fun started in a college paper. I drew a couple cartoons for "The Snapper" (I think that's what it was called) at Millerville University in 1984 but even then I don't think it was called "Doctor Fun". (Maybe this was in an old FAQ somewhere that I

2532:

reverted your edits. Perhaps you should make a post on his talk page and discuss the issue with him directly. Neither of the articles you linked to actually mention Wikinews protocols. I'll admit that the link at the top is a little strange, but I don't really know enough of the rules on Wikinews

2048:

article - but even there, it would be best to find it mentioned in an independent published source (i.e. not a blog) - something I don't believe has happened. Including it here seems more like sour grapes to me - it wouldn't do much to encourage others to take webcomics more seriously on WP if we

2033:

You know, as of recently, it wouldn't be too absurd to suggest that we make special reference to the fact that many medium-range webcomics are having their pages removed, and that it has become a rather large topic of controversy among the authors and readers of those said comics. I'll reserve my

1095:

While it isn't wrong to start the section with these two sentences, they create a NPOV problem by only focusing on what the advantages are while saying nothing about the disadvantages. Second, I believe the second sentence would be better placed in the business section since I believe it is those

1072:

While Real Life did use the 2x2 first, Fred Gallagher has said that the reason Megatokyo chose the 2x2 was due to creative differences between himself and Largo (Rodney). Fred wanted a 1x4 Japanese style, Rodney a standard 4x1. The compromise of a 2x2 was, as Fred said, a hybrid of the two styles

1062:

did, so I'm not sure if you can justifiably call the 2x2 format an "asian/western hybrid." If anything, it's an adaptation to the web, where your options are a vertical layout, small poor-quality images, or forcing 800x600's to scroll horizontally (PvP went "widescreen" sometime in 2003). Back in

936:

Webcomics can also be presented in the same manner as traditional comic books, manga and graphic novels. These comics, such as Megatokyo, Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki and Rules of Make Believe, come in a page form rather than a strip form and can be posted in a multiple page format such as

923:

format allows for quicker, more frequent updates and allows the artist to build up an audience quickly. However, on occasion, these webcomics can have lengthy story arcs. The fact that comprehensive archives are often instantly available makes more complex plotlines and characterization possible.

818:

I'm not really aware of his activities as a webcomic artist. But I think that Modern Tales is advertised as a collective which tends to de-emphasize individual artists' achievements and tries to promote the idea that all the artists are of equally high quality... You have to admit though, someone

2403:

webcomics, and need to be removed. Also, some of these dates should be simply merged. One does not simply need to list all 12 months of a year and define what happened in this months. It is much cleaner to simply state "in 2000...." and reference RELEVANT information on the history or webcomics.

1381:

Can there be a section which discusses in depth what I think is a major contrast between traditional print comics and webcomics: the somewhat consistant/constant change of art style? There are many MANY webcomics (Penny Arcade being a VERY notable example, look at the very first year versus the

872:

I think that even with the organizational reworking done on this article (I compared the current version to the earliest one and boy, is it a lot better!), this section requires an overhaul. Specifically, I think it is a lack of focus and I am partly to blame for it as I edited and elaborated on

623:

No, in fact there are many notable web comic artists which are still missing from both the article proper and the list. They have been featured in reviews of Web comics and/or interviewed in Web publications that deal with Web comics. The alphabetical list of authors has a double purpose: Giving

211:

noticed that there is absolutely no consistency of use between the two here on Knowledge (in fact, I think it was just after I commented on that fact one one of the appropriate talk or project pages that the move occurred — so maybe it's all my fault). But then again, I have little room to talk,

3248:

We are headed toward more and more convergence. What if a traditionally web-based comic starts appearing in national syndication. Let's say Penny Arcade finds itself in newspapers across the country several years from now. Do we continue listing it as a web comic? Do we base it on circulation

2111:

Not exactly, I mean more or less a webcomic review site, not necessarily a wiki. There's a trade publication (I can't remember the name) that's published quarterly or something that goes over toys/comics/movies/shows/dvds etc. I'm thinking of something among those lines, some kind of commercial

2058:

I don't think this is a case of sour grapes at all. There are "notable" webcomics, such as PvP, who are angry about the matter. This is not a case of wounded pride, this is a case of Knowledge declaring that a medium is unimportant. There are many things that are of arguably lesser relevance or

1994:

I haven´t taken any action yet. Because it would be a very significant change, but some actions would include the clean-up of this article, the making of a new article named "Online comic" which wouldn´t redirect to this anymore, and linking both of them leaving "Web comic" as a subcategorie to

1880:

Then perhaps you should follow through and make the category yourself, instead of just making the easy delete and telling us plebes to get to work. Collectives, and to a lesser extent, companies that deal exclusively in webcomics are a very important aspect of the medium - they are the webcomic

1740:

This contains mostly unsourced information. I'm particulary worried that it seems full of wikipedia editors' pet theories. Please help make sure information can be verified reliable third-party sources. There should be plenty of these between all the newspaper and magazine articles and books on

1385:

I think there are a significant number of webcomics that do this, enough to point it out as a major difference between print comics and webcomics. The standard of print comics seems to be that the format or art style is always consistent because the particular artist(s) has(have) matured their

603:

Okay, here's my feelings on this section: It's exceedingly long and full of red links. Many of the blue links on artists are redirects to their comic. I have notability concerns; sure, many of the comics listed are popular, but are they (or their artists) truly notable? Never mind the hordes of

423:

Hi, I think the line that causes so much controversy is partly my fault as the original line was a sentence fragment so I re-edited to what I thought was the original intention. Maybe I should have deleted it? Or perhaps the question of which was the first webcomic should be stated in the entry

1704:

for more information on what a reliable source is. For example, "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources." As far as your advice to add reliable sources if I feel thay are lacking, 1) The burden of evidence lies with the

1395:

1270:

Please note that I've linked OO before I became involved with it. OO as an example of a comic that still uses 2x2 and does so for the same reasons as MT is true, vanity or not. Please evaluate edits based on their truth rather than simply saying "Vanity!" Had I linked to something like Tsunami

842:

As a general comment, it's not a bad idea to have multiple examples of things (and three doesn't seem to be excessive for a defining characteristic like infinite canvas, imo, so long as their reference isn't disproportional to their relevance). Let's be careful about deleting things because we

540:

allowing artists to upload a comic cover, separate their comic into story arcs, and upload pages to their comic. Navigation links for navigation of the comic is automatically generated. Members can also post comments on each of the pages of the comics. I think PaperDemon.com may be worthy of a

2418:

Leaving appart the relevance issue of those dates, it apparently would do better if all of those facts were listed in a chronological table by year and by month. Though It'd be the best if the section received a more descriptive treatment than the current Date-event one. In fact I've seen an

1472:

IMHO, "comic" is a generic term for sequential art. "Webcomic" is a comic that is made and meant to be shown on the internet. "Print comics" are comics that are made and meant to be shown in print. More specifically it's based on the comic creator(s) intent. It's simple enough, if you ask me.

656:

The notable artist section should be removed. Many of the artists on the list are not notable, those on the list that actually are notable are already mentioned in the article making the list redudndant, and there are notable artists who are not on the list that I'd add but that would only be

2653:

We aren't self-referencing Knowledge, we are referencing the work of another project. That's not an argument for removing a news link that discusses the concerns of the community about which this article is written. That is very relevant. Additionally, the article discusses such issues as

2402:

From attempting to read the History section, it has been apparently clear that it has become increasingly garbled. It is difficult to understand, with several months being mentioned in the same year (August of 2000 is listed twice). Some of the events as well are irrelevant to the history of

682:

Is there a possibility of reinstating this list based on the criteria that the artists/webcomic nominated have made a potential impact on a certain industry? For example, Penny Arcade often tackles such topics within the game production/retail/manufacturing industry: The Phantom Console (in

2279:

than Webcomics specifically. Think about it - I'd say it's a fair lowball estimate that about 10 - 15 articles about small punk rock bands get deleted every day, either through the Speedy process (mostly) or the AfDs. But nobody's going to include an entry about said deletions in the main

2257:

With further review, I think that the "sour grapes" claim is as realistic as applying the same label to Iraqi rebels in response to the U.S. invasion. Over the next few days, I'm going to start researching about said independent published sources, and place the topic within the article.

1020:

Also, the Art & Media section was meant to be an edit for purposes of organization. Obviously, sprite comics are not the only comics around. I was hoping others would like to contribute more info there. I did not expect such a vehement refusal of something as simple as organization.

2356:

You're right that I have exaggerated that unification a bit much, notably the extent of which has already been mobilized. I guess that I have, myself, deviated from my original point. I do see what you're saying about the criticism of webcomic artists/writers/readers being connected to

728:

I think we are already in agreement. We have to deal with vanity. I think it not the fans, but comic creators who are very shameless about plugging their comic. On servel occasions, I revert non notable comics. If you see non notable comic (or think it non notable), feel free to remove

1044:

ideas from other cultures. At the very least, the contrast of 4x1 (Western), 1x4 (Japanese, though arguably could be Asian), 2x2 (Hybrid), and full page is worthwhile for the sake of completeness, since all four are arguably different in terms of aesthetics and certainly in origin.

683:

conjuction with ardOCP), Sony's handling of the Everquest property and the PR machines that spin the public view of their equipment; Jack Thompson... I'm sure there are others out there. Maybe it shouldn't be called "Notable Artists" but "Impact of Webcomics in Popular Culture".--

1085:

It seems that this section still needs some work in order to get rid of that pesky original research tag (this section and the community one, in my opinion). Unfortunately I suggest doing this the easy way by trimming away parts I beleive are difficult to give good references

1290:

Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Knowledge article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author

2182:

ever existed. My suggestion would be to just write encyclopedia articles that cite the types of sources that would be of at least appropriate quality for a junior high school research paper, and leave the drama and misinformation on whatever handful of blogs you found it.

1602:

opinion that there isn't much variety in webcomics is very accurate. Other than that they are all webcomics, there aren't many similarities between Megatokyo, Narbonic, When I am King, Nowehere Girl, Fetus-X, Get Your War On, and Chasing Rainbows, for example. --

1908:

Finally, it's a myth that they are the webcomic equivalent of "syndicates." Print syndication is a very high bar indeed, due to restrictions on space and the pecuniary risks. The same cannot be said for webcomic hosting sites, where the bar for inclusion is much

466:, though it's flash animations and not really comics in any traditional sense. NMC is the typical low-quality trash associated with sprite comics, and the only reason VfD hasn't put it on the chopping block is because its only claim to fame is being the "first". 2765:

that section. If say the article is about a person, and the wikinews article is about something that happened to that person (but the wikipedia article is really only about that person, not the event), then the link is generally the see also section. Links with

1500:

This issue stems from the existing terminology. "Comic books" resemble magazines more than books, and not as many are comedy-focused as when the term was invented. The original comic books were what we now consider reprint collections of newspaper comics; the

754:

I'm not sure that there needs to be an example cited at all though as the concept of infinite canvas is explained. Also, I find the comics cited as rather obscure references... clicking on the links only go to a short article stub. Here's a list of the comics

535:

and other art community based websites, when you post comic pages, the site has no idea that the images are related and can't list them as one entity in the galleries and can't create any way of navigating from one page of the comic to the next. Our system is

2059:

notability that are on Knowledge: if I can randomly pick the name of an unlicensed, little-known anime or manga and find a Knowledge entry with detailed synopses of its subplots, I should be able to find a Knowledge page about an equally obscure webcomic. --

1726:, while overseeing several print comics, only publishes one webcomic? I'd hardly call that a Webcomic Collective... but as a lot of thought and discussion has gone into the making of this page, I'm hesitant to just rush in a delete it. Anyway, a heads up. -- 1447:), because of the way it's distributed online, I'd classify it as print rather than web. Though it has strips online, they aren't posted until 2 weeks after they're in print and they're only online for a limited time. If it had a subscription model (à la 2154:

More established Wikipedians need to note that it isn't the minor stuff that's causing the issues its things like the WCCA, Ugly Hill, Sluggy Freelance, Penny Arcade, Keenspot, GU Comics. an AfD on Keenspot. Its especially bad when you get things like

1137:

It seems a bit odd giving two examples of comics that take advantage of what is the norm. Wouldn't it be more interesting to give examples where the comics content in deed has caused problems. I'm thinking of for example when the conservative webcomic

3252:

Or is it all about the birth of the comic? While very few print comics were birthed online, that was mainly because the internet did not exist at their births. I'd wager most new print comics by new comic artists spent some time online somewhere.

2330:

this... seriously. I spend more than a negligable amount of time going through webcomics, and of my 30+ that I check regularly, nobody's even mentioned it (and there are a lot of big names on the list)... In fact, during this same period of time,

94:

Changed it to History... since it seems to need one. But don't know enough about the history of webcomics to really add to that section... hope people liked the other sections that I added like Industry and Community. --kainee 23:38, 03-28-2005

2500: 2361:, although the criticism itself is not a new argument. Either way, the topic cannot be pursued until I have access to the independent published source, and as you predicted, I haven't found a (very) applicable source. Anyways, it's been fun. -- 265:"Web comic" means that it is basely a comic, but it just happens to be on the interwebs. "Webcomic" refers to the distinct genre. It's not just a "lazy way to type 'web-comic'". "Correct established English" has nothing to do with it. -- 902:

and e-sheep) are free to spread out in every direction indefinitely rather than be confined to normal print dimensions. Other comics, such as Sluggy_Freelance and Argon Zark, have experimented by incorporating animation into their comics.

2386:

article has been mentioned here several times, but what nobody has yet pointed out is that it doesn't mention the webcomics issue at all. By all means refer visitors to the article, but only after the relevant information has been added.

1513:, which is either a magazine with multi-page comic strips, or a comic book with magazine articles. Of course, these conceptual hybrids eventually find their own ground. Is television primarily small-screen movies, or radio with pictures? 1032:

I find it ironic that, between the three of us, all editing the same night, we have completely different methods for going about fixing the article: Kainee wants to organize, Dragonfiend wants to trim, and I want to do a little of both.

402:

I think what that edit is trying to say is that Where the Buffalos Roam is the first webcomic that was not originally a print comic (since Doctor Fun started in a college paper). It seems to be splitting hairs, though, since it didn't

819:

who's an artist that is part of Modern Tales is not as notable as a giant webcomic that has a really huge audience such as Sluggy, PvP, Penny-Arcade. But if you really feel that T Campbell is so noteworthy, edit the article then. --

1187:

I think there needs to be a mention of Penny Arcade in here, who, among others, are some of the best known "professional" webcomic artists. Not only are they incredibly successful, they have their own charity drive and convention.

2160:

that makes the negative impression. And that impression is really bad - in my searches I have found practically no support for Knowledge except for a few reverse imports where Wikipedians have contributed in relevant discussions.

1611:

Yes, Dragonfiend nailed it. Criticism sections are difficult because people confuse them for free-for-all POV zones. I don't think there's any validity to the claim that webcomics are cookiecutter, either. The medium allows for

3123:.) If there are a lot of people boycotting and they are getting a lot of publicity then it could be significant. (Which raises the question of how we measure the size of the boycott and how do we document the measurements.) 1652: 716:

This smacks too much of a bias as I've never heard of these comics and also seems to be far too glowing. I don't really have anything against these comics but it's too blatant. What do people think? Agree? Disagree? --kainee

2865:

was simply deleting it, not moving it. It's not even a story I wrote on Wikinews, but it sure did garner a lot of reaction from Webcomics, and is the most read story on Wikinews. It was blogged about and reported upon.

1420:

How is the determination of whether something is a webcomic or not made? If it's around here, I missed it and could use a pointer. I created an article for a comic I read weekly in a popular boston-area print publication

1516:

One thing I added to this article was the fact that certain "graphic narrative media properties" started as comic books with collection volumes, added a web presence, and dropped production of the individual issues. Both

918:{I would say that with the popularity of gamer comics that it is far from a niche genre for webcomics. The original sentence actually only cites this as one end of a range of genres. This meaning is lost in the revision.} 158:

started to get the hang of editing it section by section. Anyway, I'm done with all of the edits I can think of and am ready for a better webcomics expert to add more information to this entry. --kainee 2:15, 03/30/2005

3040:

you are saying is that you don't like the boycott, so you are just going to delete it because you are worried that someone who hasn't heard of it will see it, and they will like the idea of the boycott and join it.

2533:

links. Anyway, I would say engage him directly and let him know that you want to discuss the issue on here. If there is a discussion and you want a third opinion, leave another note on the 3O page and we'll help. —

3400:

I agree the names need to be removed. It just clutters and bogs down the article and alot of the links seem to be more based on the tastes of the writer than their actual relevance and notability as references.

2178:"the majority of the webcomics community" is a group of people so incredibly large (millions of people?) that I find it hard to believe that they agree on anything, let alone on something like whether the fabled 1090:

The web has, at least potentially, several advantages over the conventional form of publishing. It has removed many of the traditional barriers that discourage independent comics artists from having their work

2347:

various discussion forums. Now maybe I'm just not reading the right comics (I avoid gamer comics/sprite comics/anime knock-offs like the plague), but this seems to fall well short of a call for revolution. --

3327:

Should there be a section talking about the types of comic? Like those one-time funny strips, versus story lines, weekly comics, etc? Also what about the medium used. There's 2D comics, there's a lot of new

3302:

We don't establish guidelines on what is or isn't a webcomic; if a reliable source calls it a webomic, then we can document that. This article already discusses several webcomics that are also print comics:

2581:

is another guideline worth reading. Anyway, this article is about webcomics themselves, not webcomics in relation to Knowledge inclusion guidelines. That issue is not so much as mentioned in this article.

3286:, for instance. This is a webcomic that has a monthly syndication, but no one is trying to argue that it is not a webcomic. I think it will be obvious when a webcomic is a webcomic and when it is not. 843:

haven't heard of it, as opposed to hard stats. I'm kind of delete-happy myself, but webcomics in particular is a phenomenon most people don't understand, and the more we can help them out, the better. --

1760:

for their free webcomic hosting... I can think of two other free hosters right away). And yet, I'm erring on the side of inclusion on this one. We'll see how I feel about it in the morning, though. --

2179: 925:{I mention the page form because there's been a growing number of graphic-novel and manga influenced webcomics so it is actually relevant to recognize that. Reorganization is still needed of course.} 2991:

Just because all you couch potatoes who's whole world revolves around TV haven't heard of any of these Webcomics does not mean they are not quite famous...it just means that they are not on TV...

1755:

of a talk page. Those above comments still stand, BTW. I recently removed a link to a site named "Rumblo" that was under the Collectives section, as it was a link to a personal site for a single

1969:

section on syndication that cited some sources (other than the aforementioned syndicates, since they'd be primary sources) then there would be better justification for including a short list. -

904:{If brevity were the issue of the day then infinite canvas wouldn't even be touched on here as it is NOT a common experiment and only one of the few ideas bouncing around the webcomic community} 305:

Does anybody have ideas on how we can expands this very lacking section which is history?? And Doctor Fun is a webcomic that I never ever heard of, so I am questioning it popularity status. --

933:

These styles can also be considered to be part of the Copy and Paste movement fostered by computers and the Internet. There has also been experimentation with 3D art in the webcomic medium.

2284:

article - because it really isn't relevant to punk rock (and those who identify with the punk scene probably don't attach a lot of importance to being "validated" by Knowledge anyhow). It

1100:- this solves the traditional problem of having to reduce detail or cut out background art to make room for them in panels with a lot of conversation, which often frustrates comic artists. 2338:, which features more WP references than any other comic I know of, hasn't even said one word about this "controversy." I probably would have never known about it if I didn't look in on 3142:

Doesn't "toon" usually refer to animation? I was expecting when I typed "webtoon" into the search, to find an article related to animation created to showcase on the internet, perhaps

1680: 3087:

The protest is about boycotting Knowledge because of their exlusion of webcomics, and you are saying the boycott is not relevant because Knowledge does not mention these webcomics!

1525:

made the shift out of financial necessity: once the fans were hooked, they stopped buying the individual issues and started buying the collected volumes. New fans would rather buy

666:

Removed the list. If we dearly need this list (which we don't), I would highly reccomend giving reasons why those artists are notable as opposed to merely asserting that they are.

3282:

I do not see what the controversy would be. There are several comics that have been published in print form and, as far as I know, there have been no problems with them. Take

3161:

Looks like a separate entry in at Webtoon now. I've added it to "See also" on the Webcomic page. The Webtoon page will need some serious cites if it is to survive, however. --

1244:), who said that Real Life was the first and that it inspired him to pick the same format for his hand drawn comic. If you find facts to the contrary, edit rather than delete. 2112:

community site that perhaps in the eyes of WP could be used as a 'primary source' to get rid of these V issues--something that could be construed as an 'online publication'.--

1846: 1705:

editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain (not the editors removing edits without reliable sources) and 2) I can't really add reliable sources if none exist. --

908:

Because webcomics are not subject to the content restrictions of publishers or comic syndicates, they enjoy an artistic freedom similar to underground and alternative comics.

916:

take advantage of the fact that internet censorship is virtually nonexistent. Some comics explore niche genres such as video game-oriented comics or transsexual biographies.

1563:

I'm sure other criticisms for webcomics out there, but these are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head. Hopefully it's enough to get a criticism section in.

2435:

not. To give you a head start at sniffing out the crème de la crème of the webcomic world, PC Magazine has picked its 10 favorite "wicked awesome" strips." -PCMag.com

1321:

a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. If you want to give examples of comics that use a certain format, give examples other than your own webcomic. --

632: 1676:

There are no reliable sources to support the idea that this exceedingly trivial less-than-week-old fan site belongs in this article on the broad topic of webcomics. --

3202: 560:

The comics section of PaperDemon.com launched around 11pm Pacific standard time on October 11, 2006. I'll be watching this page to see what your thoughts are on this.

378: 3009:

If we are going to start excluding huge groups of well-known people from wikipedia for not being "notable enough," I propose we start with the country music singers!

2779: 2738: 1574: 1484: 513: 169: 106: 1396:

style(s) already; there is enough consistency that users are not subjected to the "unprofessionalism" (if it may be called that) to the changing/maturing style. --

1386:

style(s) already; there is enough consistency that users are not subjected to the "unprofessionalism" (if it may be called that) to the changing/maturing style. --

1991:

in the web. A propper use of both words could lead us to consider every Web comic as an Online comic, but not every Online comic should be considered a Web comic.

463: 2044:

Since the focus here is the webcomics' community strongly negative reaction to the matter, a (brief) mention of this "controversy" would be better suited for the

642:

I still maintain, as well, that attempting to maintain such a list (meaning reverting the daily vanity) is not worth the benefit (if any) that the list provides.

3099: 3044: 3019: 1199: 649:

I agree on the part to maintain the list will mean reverting the daily vanity. If we maintain popluar webcomic list, it will get longer and longer and longer. --

2965:

Maybe it should be moved to the talk page after the boycott ends...since then people will probably forget about it and it won't be notable...but the boycott is:

745:

I restored two paragraphs. Yes, the medium section needs some work, but removing all examples of infinite canvas comics was not an improvement to this article.

120:

Well, once I knew enough to get the hell out of the way while you were at work so that you'd stop clobbering my little edits with your huge ones, sure... :-) --

3186: 2239: 374: 219:

But "webcomic" is an awkward unnecessary neologism that doesn't appear in dictionaries—it's not a trademark or other standard usage, just a lazy way to type

1784:, supported by the ongoing technological development and sophisitcation (multi-media and big screen) of handsets. One company focused on exploiting this is 331:

Where you get these info? I am going to look for webcomics history articles around the net. I think I will add some infomation around Saturady or Sunday. --

2760:

Just to mention something in the middle here, generally (as in what i do, and what some other wikinewsies do, but not all people do, and I don't know what

2131:

That's something to consider, even though it has traces of being conspiracy-ish, but there is a chance there could be someone spearheading the campaign. --

2122: 1723: 1570: 1480: 718: 509: 425: 283: 165: 102: 3256:

If we do not establish guidelines for these situations and merely act on them subjectively we will find the webcomic page mired in further controversy.

3206: 2089: 1422: 1415: 3267: 2404: 1429: 1204: 631:

I think we have widely differing opinions on what counts as "notable," in the context of this page. I see the list as it currently is as, effectively,

3229: 2906: 2890: 2745: 2708: 2686: 2665: 2586: 2141:

article was deleted or considered for deletion, I'd suggest considering the possibility that they might not be accurately presenting the situation. --

3137: 2408: 1975: 1960: 1917: 1889: 1208: 2544: 1492: 604:

fans/creators who want to put up non-notable comics (forty of the past fifty edits on this one section alone, with, what, six or seven reverts?).

2847:). Since I doubt the event is hardly a major-enough event in the history of webcomics to warrant its own section, I recommend the latter option. 2595:

Gah. Pet peeve of mine. Avoiding self-reference is a style guideline, not a linkage or inclusion guideline. That's why we can have articles like

2515: 2420: 2242: 2060: 1996: 1764: 967:

would ensue... was just trying to edit. I thought we were going for concise writing style with a nice general summary of aspects of webcomics. --

177: 3022: 2572: 2135: 2125: 910:{The original sentence was to show a similarity in self-publication not just artistic freedom. The condensation took some of the subtlety away.} 458:

My understanding of it is, B&G is the first sprite comic anyone ever gave a damn about. It is also the second most popular, the first being

2559: 2365: 2351: 2318: 2293: 2220: 2092: 2053: 1874: 1606: 358:

which deal with the historical aspects of the series while mentioning the influence of other Web comics series, giving historical filiation. --

2644: 2630: 2612: 2262: 2252: 2145: 2116: 2106: 2063: 2020: 1544: 3263: 2794: 2440: 2267:

Wow, comparing the deletion of a few Knowledge articles to the aftermath of a full-scale invasion of a foreign nation... that's certainly an

1467: 1439:, for example, has long been available online, but because it's better known in print, it's usually not thought of as a webcomic. Likewise, 1211: 1147: 1003: 993: 847: 687: 286: 3372:

The amount of namedropping in this article is awful. It looks like every fan has tried to somehow mention his favorite webcomic anywhere. --

3127: 3102: 3064: 3043:

Your own wording has contradicted your stance that the only reason you were removing it from the talk page was because it was not notable.

2232: 661: 3249:

numbers (whichever is higher print or web)? What if a print comic moves to be a predominantly web based comic with higher web circulation?

3235: 2729:

No, that is not my position. I have no opinion on whether or not the webcomic community has been wronged. I object to the inclusion of non-

2187: 2172: 2074: 1853: 961: 785: 3295: 3155: 2682:. This might be because that issue is not notable. Why are we including a link to a Wikinews article that discusses a non-notable topic? — 2423: 2164:

or use blogging software, and therefore disallowed as sources by the current rules, or at least the rules as they are currently applied.--

2010: 1624: 1616:

more flexibility. Sure, the imitators outnumber the innovators, but that's true for everything. If you have any doubt, take a look at the

428: 2494: 2486: 1639: 598: 491: 3316: 3275: 1325: 1275: 1265: 1037: 733: 670: 470: 2940:

has begun a boycott of Knowledge during the current fundraiser. People participating in the boycott are objecting to the exclusion of

2916: 1859: 3361: 2429: 1839: 1410: 1400: 1390: 1375: 989:

No, I don't think the article needs much elaboration on styles or genres -- that could go in entries for particular styles or genres.

792: 749: 574: 269: 3245:

We have articles on "Web Pages in Print". We also have traditionally print comics that are making strong waves online (ie: Dilbert).

3212:

Exactly. I double checked and it is now exclusively in print. I'm going to remove the reference (it's a small side note anyway.) --

2932: 2391: 1709: 1695: 1361: 1341:

generally presents the panels as separate images so that they wrap according to the window size? Does any other webcomic do that? —

3047: 479: 2443: 1642: 1125:

The fact that comprehensive archives are often instantly available helps make more complex plotlines and characterization possible.

1077: 1067: 386: 260: 2504: 1940:

to comic syndicates that I was alluding to. Of course they don't hold the same power as the print syndicates - but this isn't the

1310: 1248: 931:{Far from it... I would say that illustration is by far the most common artistic method used with all the varying styles implied.} 521: 2836: 2800: 2302: 1807: 1345: 1191: 3167: 2785:

are also in see also. However that is just the very general how its practiced currently. There are no set rules (I'm aware of).

452: 3341: 1234: 813: 2439:

P.S. If anyone knows how to create an "External Links" tab in the article and thinks this would be helpful, by all means. --

2151:

of searching around and the is prevalent across a large proportion of the artists, in discussion board's and at review sites.

564: 2603:. ASR is for things like "A webpage, such as this one" or a "A wiki, like the one you are reading now". Read the guideline. 3198: 2692:

title, that it shouldn't be included? The article isn't about the Wikimedia fundraiser, and if it was, that would make it

1217: 418: 382: 3346:

I think the medium is important, mentioning Hand-Drawn, Wacom-Drawn, Copy-Paste, Sprite & 3D is probably noteworthy.

2462:

Why are there no images for this page, given the very visual nature of it's subject? At the very least there could be an

2275:

published source that is actually concerning itself with this, then go for it. I still hold that this has more to do with

1745: 3353: 3322: 1578: 1488: 1133:

Some comics (e.g. Leisure Town and Fetus-X) take advantage of the fact that Internet censorship is virtually nonexistent.

517: 173: 110: 3381: 3173: 2411: 1730: 1663:, has come to the attention of several webcomic authors. Most have been very receptive of the idea, Randy Milholland of 3387: 1835:

Is there anything more adult and more like a graphic novel (episodic over a few pages rather than over a few panels? --

3395: 3423: 1802: 1582: 1195: 2824: 1121:

Are these examples well known? I admit to not being very knowledgable about photo-comics, but maybe someone else is.

78:

section heading? In what way are the things under it related to the theme of, well, "themes"? I didn't want to just

2334:

featured a link to his WP page, with a blurb about the amount of hard work by many individuals that it represents.

1443:

appears in print, but it's still considered an iconic webcomic. For this particular comic (the actual location is

722: 3220:

I've restored this as it is a great example of a webcomic being published as a book and having great succcess. ---

1298: 2578: 2314: 1598: 1181: 586: 300: 114: 74:

I suspect it's an artifact from some earlier incarnation of the article, but what on earth is the purpose of the

2877: 2038: 1166: 929:

Common artistic styles of webcomic strips include sprite comic, pixel art, clip art, found art and photography.

3119:, who started the boycott, is boycotting then that doesn't sound significant. (Note, we do have an article on 3028: 2814: 2528:, and I was wondering why it was listed there. There hasn't been any conversation or any debate. It seems like 2049:

continue to get so hung up on these Meta-type issues. It's time to set the wounded pride aside and move on. --

1594: 893: 2489: 2466:

or similarly licensed strip as an illustration, if the rights issues are too complicated for other comics. --

1999: 639:

lists all webcomics (and their artists) that have articles (and are, ergo, notable enough to have an article).

244: 2829: 1751:

I've moved my previous comment down here; I've since learned proper etiquette dictates comments going to the

1435:

The short answer is there is a large grey area. It really depends on how an individual comic is perceived.

703:

may believe animation has no place in comics). A good example of this would be Argon Zark! by Charley Parker.

593: 1455:

I'd consider it a hybrid comic/webcomic, but that doesn't appear to be the case. I'll change the stub from

881:

Split the heading in half. Named the two halves, Form and Art. Hopefully this will avoid the murkiness... --

3271: 1271:

Channel (which I was also involved in but does not use 2x2), then your deletion would have been warranted.

424:

itself? If anyone knows dates and can provide them, that would probably help to clear things up...--kainee

2470: 1686:

I don't know where you're getting the idea it's not sourced, and it obviously not trivial if someone like

1117:

photo-comics such as Reprographics, Fluff in Brooklyn, and Transparent Life have been gaining recognition.

1048: 1895: 1882: 1510: 2856: 1701: 1306: 1302: 485: 38: 1314: 585:

I wasn't completely sure where to put this, in History or Community, but seems like there should be a

207:

Actually, Google returns almost three times as many hits for "webcomic" as it does for "web comic". I

1970: 1912: 1869: 1735: 3018:

for moving this to the talk page instead of just deleting it without any discussion or consensus!

3377: 2501:

wikinews:Wikimedia fundraiser highlights webcomic community's frustration with Knowledge guidelines

448:

as the first sprite comic. Can someone with a better understanding of sprite comics clear this up?

3357: 3291: 2809:

project: The link is pertinent and should stay. Comment: If the editor who believes it should

2806: 2397: 2034:

opinions on the matter, but I think the topic is widespread, and noteworthy enough to mention. --

1590: 3410:

being published successfully as a book -- it was the first graphic novel to be nominated for a

3391: 2383: 2358: 2326: 2276: 2045: 1456: 1444: 1009:

think that your edit was a lot more extreme as you rephrased and deleted sections while I only

3419: 3312: 3225: 2922:

Moved to tyalk page until it becomes a more ntoable boycott (i.e. I'm boycotting the boycott)

2887: 2862: 2840: 2742: 2683: 2627: 2583: 2512: 1657:

Three times in the last three days I have removed the following paragraph from this article:

1143: 1139: 249:

Dictionaries always lag behind current usage. They are descriptive, not wholly prescriptive.

1670:

commenting on the drink for his comic, and those without a drink, such as Starline Hodge of

589:

mention in here. Awards and recognition in general seem to be a line of thought lacking. --

3367: 3349: 3259: 3194: 2900: 2871: 2769: 2730: 2702: 2659: 2566: 2529: 2475: 2348: 2290: 2050: 1957: 1898:

seem to invite me reverting with a more complete rationale. If I misread that, I apologise.

1886: 1799: 1761: 1727: 1566: 1476: 1460: 1440: 505: 370: 161: 98: 274:

Within the webcomics community, the preferred spelling for many, if not the majority, is "

8: 3411: 3373: 2821: 2310: 1780:

Digital web comics are increasingly also been adapted for viewing via mobile/cell phones

1717: 1426: 1230:

was enough to call bullshit on that. I have to wonder about the other facts presented. --

3287: 1664: 1550: 1534: 636: 635:

with a few actually notable exceptions (all of whom are in the article proper). Again,

612: 545:. If we could also get at least a PaperDemon.com stub started that would be great too. 282:

it's not in dictionaries yet. It's a miracle that "blog" is already in dictionaries.

186: 140: 2449:

It's interesting but it's too subjective to be considered encyclopedic information. --

2436: 1317:

and probably others. Xuanwu, please stop spamming wikipedia with links to your comic.

129:

One note (assuming that's you still doing all these edits): In general, wiki style is

2790: 2640: 2608: 2534: 2508: 2229: 2132: 2113: 2070: 2028: 2017: 1829: 1617: 1407: 1397: 1387: 1223: 1163: 1055: 684: 1667: 777:

Would that work as a compromise until the quality of the section can be improved? --

3415: 3337: 3332:

s too, then there's manga, etc. Maybe new articles would be better for each type..

3308: 3221: 2852: 2184: 2142: 2103: 2007: 1985: 1850: 1770: 1742: 1706: 1687: 1677: 1603: 1338: 1322: 1285: 1262: 1258: 1178: 1171: 1000: 990: 890: 746: 692: 658: 488: 484:

Sounds like great historical info, Gentaur! I found this outside verifiable source

449: 415: 346: 325: 257: 237: 213: 200: 151: 121: 87: 3143: 2928: 2886:

If you're OK with moving it to the "See also" section, then that would be fine. —

2335: 1526: 3091:

You may not be making any puns, but you're being a lot funnier than you realize!

3081:. The reason that his name is not mentioned in the article, is because he is a 2839:

to see how it was used elsewhere, and only see it either in a relevant section (

2086: 1928:

is extremely low: I guess what I'm getting at is that some collectives (such as

1226:

was the first one to use 2x2, and a simple check of the starting days of it and

738:

Already deleted the offending words. Yaaaay, I signed up for an account! ^_^V --

555: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2948:

I think that this text should be moved back to the main article...right now it

2818: 2362: 2331: 2306: 2259: 2249: 2217: 2169: 2165: 2035: 1836: 1541: 1522: 1241: 958: 867: 844: 590: 580: 395: 266: 69: 2844: 1240:

Attributing Real Life as the first 2x2 comic comes from David Anez (author of

3402: 3213: 3180: 3151: 3120: 3116: 2937: 2457: 2450: 1933: 1925: 1700:

I didn't say "it's not sourced," I said "There are no reliable sources." See

1671: 1621: 1464: 1372: 1318: 1159: 561: 459: 47: 17: 1113:

This is true of many regular gag strips as well so it seems a bit redundant.

2786: 2636: 2604: 2525: 2467: 1948:

article - and I still believe this is a wholly relevant list for inclusion

1894:

I too am not interested in edit warring, I'm a 1RR kind of guy... but your

1781: 1448: 1358: 1342: 982:

Also, perhaps elaboration then on the various styles or genres possible? --

806: 571: 476: 441: 3098:

article, but I am a new user and that page is locked for obvious reasons.

1354: 3333: 3240: 3162: 2848: 2596: 1953: 1817: 1794: 1530: 1518: 1294: 1281: 1272: 1254: 1245: 1074: 1064: 1045: 1034: 1022: 1014: 983: 968: 957:, unique aspect to webcomics. Any encyclopedia article should have it. -- 947: 914:{Fetus-X entry is up for deletion-- presumably because it is not notable} 882: 874: 858: 820: 799: 778: 739: 667: 643: 625: 616: 467: 411: 408: 359: 342: 339: 321: 318: 253: 250: 234: 3077:

does not have that many meanings...I think you need to look up the word

1529:

collections than dig through back issue bins. It made business sense to

138:

there really isn't any need to, for instance, wikilink every mention of

3124: 3061: 3033: 3015: 2924: 2654:

self-publication and notability. It's hard to see your point here. --

2484: 2388: 1821: 1637: 1231: 1222:

The section about comic layouts looks dubious. It makes the claim that

1142:, which is syndicated on some conservative blogs had some brief nudity 532: 313: 2697:

topic" - if Webcomics are unnotable, should we delete this article? --

1540:

Anyway, that's my three and a half cents on this part of the topic. --

543:

first free community site specifically designed for hosting web comics

3095: 2600: 2481: 2343: 2281: 2271:

way of looking at things. But by all means, if you can find a truely

2238:

Is it all coincidence? I'm not arguing a point really, just confused.

1945: 1929: 1653:

Removal of info on non-notable "recent" site with no reliable sources

1634: 1059: 810: 789: 730: 657:

contributing to the problem. Any objections to me deleting the list?

650: 367:

comic was first published would help to settle the problem. --kainee

332: 306: 192: 146: 2956:...where else better to mention it than in the Knowledge article on 570:

No you can't, this mention would be considered as advertisement. --

3147: 2941: 2734: 2551: 1813: 1756: 1692: 1659:"Recently, a wikisite devoted to drinks based on webcomics, called 1502: 1151: 1109:

On occasion, these types of webcomics have more lengthy story arcs.

549: 462:, with a very large gap between second and third, which I think is 275: 196: 3146:. Indeed, that article defines the term "webtoon" as animation. 1905:

how it might be included is not "telling plebes to get to work."

1825: 1436: 2944:

from Knowledge on the grounds that they are not notable enough.

2121:

Do we even know who is heading the deletion campaign, and why? (

2006:

Do you have sources saying this is an important distinction? --

231:) is correct established English, and would cause no confusion. 2954:

it is a currently active boycott by webcomics against wikipedia

1941: 1371:

mostly vertical format and page width isn't really an issue. –

1297:

has inserted references to his own webcomic in the articles on

1155: 784:

T Campbell is a name I reconized. I think I see it his name in

611:

notable is already in the article proper. The rest can stay at

3191:

It's not a webcomic as far as I know. Did I miss something?

1741:

webcomics. Thsi should be one of our best webcomics article.

1660: 1451:), where you could pay to see the new and older comics, then 1105:

of the sentence unless someone can dig up a reference for it.

3329: 1509:

just about the best possible description for something like

1158:

refuses to handle transactions for adult webcomics? a href="

2678:

Yes, but this article does not discuss the Wikimedia issue

2463: 1901:

If material isn't appropiate for inclusion and I remove it

2805:

Ok, here's my third opinion as per the guidelines for the

1785: 1144:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008694.php

953:

Not trying to start an edit war, but infinite canvas is a

3283: 3078: 3057: 1227: 2342:

once in a while, and from there I was able to look over

1674:, have asked fans to create drinks for their webcomics." 1063:

2000 anything wider than 800 pixels wasn't very common.

528: 2985:

of wikipedia, and probably don't like webcomics either.

2339: 1257:'s recent edits that promote his own comic. Please see 212:

because I am not terribly consistent with it myself. --

1537:

to give away the comic and sell the print collections.

394:

and not just a downloadable image via any protocol).--

1868:

see also and would better be suited to a category. -

223:. It's the way a lot of people write on the Web, but 2973:

Information that someone is likely to be looking for

2813:

stay wishes to seek additional input, I suggest the

2437:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2139707,00.asp

2325:I guess the connection I was trying to make to the 2168:00:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (Edited for truth -- 1096:kind of barriers that primarily have been removed. 1058:started using the 2x2 format almost a year before 191:Please, explain to me why the page was moved from 86:a section break right about there; but still... -- 2861:I never had a problem with moving the link - but 1864:I've removed this list as it is too broad for a 1337:On a related subject — do I remember right that 2414:(I keep forgetting to sign these darn things.) 2554:, where the Talk page to the article elicited 1589:As long as your criticism section follows the 1284:'s most recent vanity edits to this page. Per 912:Some comics (such as Sexy Losers and Fetus-X) 898:Here is your re-written section in full here: 3187:Why is American Born Chinese referenced here? 2087:http://www.comixpedia.org/index.php/Main_Page 1812:I used to read and collect paper comics like 1505:collections I loved as a child are like this. 556:http://www.paperdemon.com/comic/about/20.html 199:. The typical spelling still is "Web comic."— 3085:. That's what the whole protest is about! 2843:) or at the bottom in the see-also section ( 2635:That's possible, but ARS isn't one of them. 2505:Knowledge:Wikimedia sister projects#Wikinews 3073:And although I do get your joke...the word 1416:Differentiate between webcomics and comics? 1798:or b) a defining feature of webcomics. -- 1425:, but it's been labeled a webcomic. TIA. - 1160:http://www.talkaboutcomics.com/blog/?p=514 3115:How many people are boycotting? If just 2550:We have an article on a sister project, 2180:Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Keenspot 798:for infinite canvas... please add it. -- 761:Cayetano Garza's Cuentos De La Frontera 538:specifically designed for sequential art 3174:We should remove the referential links. 3094:By the way...I wanted to put it in the 2837:Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Wikinews 2558:discussion from the Webcomic community 1936:) are highly regarded - the "high bar" 1775:I removed this recently added passage: 805:I think he is one of the cartoonist of 14: 3003:the Knowledge community to include it. 2979:Described from a neutral point of view 2524:: Hey. I just saw this page listed on 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1013:text, which is much easier to fix. -- 541:mention because I believe we are the 3236:Need to define Print versus Webcomic 1924:Of course the bar for such sites as 436:The history section currently lists 82:it, because I think the article can 25: 2499:I would like to remove the link to 2495:Link to irrelevant Wikinews article 1885:" is pretty weak justification. -- 1691:them! Not that hard a thing to do. 440:as the first sprite comic, but the 23: 2917:Boycott of Knowledge and Wikimedia 2503:from the top of this article. Per 1860:Webcomic collectives and companies 24: 3435: 1965:(Belated reply.) If there were a 1129:I'd like to remove this sentence. 950:05:37-05:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC) 550:http://www.paperdemon.com/comics 29: 3138:Should "Webtoon" redirect here? 2579:Knowledge:Avoid self-references 2430:FYI: PC Mag's top ten Webcomics 1808:Webcomic recommendation, please 1599:Knowledge:Neutral point of view 338:Mostly from forum discussions. 3405:17:10, 13 November 2008 (CST) 3216:17:10, 13 November 2008 (CST) 2424:01:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 1595:Knowledge:No original research 767:Argon Zark! by Charley Parker 764:Patrick Farley of e-sheep.com 548:Here's the comics home page: 13: 1: 3424:16:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC) 3386:I don't find it distracting 3362:02:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC) 3230:16:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC) 3207:01:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 3183:23:12, 7 February 2008 (CST) 3168:23:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 3156:19:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 2993:which is why they are called 2933:00:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 2907:20:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 2891:19:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 2878:13:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 2857:10:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 2825:02:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 2795:01:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 2746:19:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 2709:19:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 2687:18:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 2666:18:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 2645:16:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 2631:05:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 2613:04:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 2587:18:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 2573:18:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 2545:16:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 2516:01:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 2253:19:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 2243:16:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 2233:15:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 2221:11:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 2188:02:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 2173:11:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 2146:20:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 2136:20:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 2126:13:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 2117:16:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 2107:23:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 2093:22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 2075:22:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 2064:21:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 2054:16:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 2039:15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 2021:19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 2011:04:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 2000:04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 1854:04:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1840:03:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1746:07:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 1731:04:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC) 1625:02:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 1607:00:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 1583:22:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 1493:23:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 1411:18:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1401:19:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1391:18:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1202:) 09:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC). 809:, so that make him notable.-- 688:19:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 492:18:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC) 480:15:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC) 3396:02:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC) 3128:16:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 3103:18:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 3065:17:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 3048:17:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 3023:17:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 2490:05:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC) 2407:09:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 1976:01:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 1961:01:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC) 1918:00:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC) 1890:00:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC) 1883:make a category or something 1875:23:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC) 1847:Category:Long form webcomics 1803:16:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 1765:03:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC) 1643:05:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC) 1545:07:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 1468:10:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC) 1326:02:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC) 1276:01:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC) 1266:15:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC) 1249:08:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC) 1235:11:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 1167:02:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 575:02:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 565:01:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC) 554:Here's a sample of a comic: 7: 3323:Type of comic? Medium used? 1511:Knights of the Dinner Table 1430:19:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 1207:09:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 986:04:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC) 885:04:29, July 26, 2005 (UTC) 877:01:31, July 26, 2005 (UTC) 802:01:22, July 26, 2005 (UTC) 781:00:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC) 742:23:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC) 527:Hi there, I'm the owner of 10: 3440: 2952:a notable boycott because 2626:a good deal of policies. — 2471:03:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 2412:09:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 1702:Knowledge:Reliable sources 1556:Maybe someone else could? 1376:03:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC) 1362:07:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC) 1346:17:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC) 1212:09:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 1025:05:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC) 1017:05:50, July 26, 2005 (UTC) 971:05:50, July 26, 2005 (UTC) 861:02:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC) 823:02:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC) 607:Really, any comic that is 522:04:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC) 446:Neglected Mario Characters 287:06:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC) 261:22:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC) 245:17:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC) 178:07:15, 30 March 2005 (UTC) 154:10:11, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) 115:04:32, 29 March 2005 (UTC) 3382:21:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC) 3342:19:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC) 2366:02:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC) 2352:20:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC) 2319:18:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC) 2294:21:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 2263:21:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 1722:Has anybody noticed that 1710:03:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC) 1696:02:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC) 1681:02:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC) 1182:19:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC) 1078:20:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 1068:20:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 1054:I feel obligated to note 1049:20:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 1038:06:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 1004:05:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 994:05:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 962:05:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 894:05:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 848:02:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 814:02:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 793:01:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 750:00:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 734:23:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 723:22:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 671:00:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC) 662:01:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC) 633:List of popular webcomics 599:"Notable Artists" section 594:08:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC) 471:01:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 453:00:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 429:22:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 419:21:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 398:07:02, 17 Jul 2005 (MST) 387:13:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 362:15:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) 335:01:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) 328:01:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) 309:23:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) 270:18:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC) 216:05:09, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC) 124:06:15, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) 90:16:12, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC) 3317:03:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 3296:02:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 3276:17:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC) 3069:I think you really were 2895:That's fine with me. -- 2841:Hunter S. Thompson#Death 2480:Sources (of criticism): 2444:19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC) 1633:Sources (of criticism): 770:Eric Millikin's Fetus-X 646:4 July 2005 02:16 (UTC) 628:4 July 2005 00:56 (UTC) 619:2 July 2005 06:23 (UTC) 349:04:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) 203:04:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3071:boycotting the boycott. 2970:Relevant to the article 2835:I took a quick look at 2739:Webcomics and Wikimedia 2733:material in Knowledge. 2453:22:35, 7 Feb 2008 (CST) 2392:19:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 1591:Knowledge:Verifiability 1299:Neon Genesis Evangelion 653:4 July 2005 02:39 (UTC) 301:History expansion ideas 3054:boycotting the boycott 3029:Boycotting the boycott 2384:Criticism of Knowledge 2359:Criticism of Knowledge 2327:Criticism of Knowledge 2277:Criticism of Knowledge 2046:Criticism of Knowledge 1457:Template:Webcomic-stub 1445:The Thinking Ape Blues 1135: 1127: 1119: 1111: 1102: 1093: 464:Secret of Mana Theater 2976:Not original research 2863:User:Remember the dot 2305:comment was added by 2085:How about this site: 1194:comment was added by 1140:Day_by_Day_(webcomic) 1131: 1123: 1115: 1107: 1098: 1088: 42:of past discussions. 2815:Requests for comment 1461:Template:Comics-stub 3412:National Book Award 1944:article. It is the 937:chapters or books. 407:on the Web either. 3056:was intended as a 2845:Animation#See also 1724:King Tractor Press 1665:Something Positive 1535:Carla Speed McNeil 1218:"Formats" accuracy 758:T Campbell's Fans 637:List of web comics 613:List of web comics 141:Something Positive 3352:comment added by 3278: 3262:comment added by 3209: 3197:comment added by 2344:Paul Southworth's 2322: 2084: 1830:Sandman (Vertigo) 1736:Original Research 1661:I'm Just Drinking 1618:list of webcomics 1585: 1569:comment added by 1495: 1479:comment added by 1423:Thinkin Ape Blues 1355:here's an example 1203: 524: 508:comment added by 389: 373:comment added by 242: 241:2005-08-4 17:02 Z 180: 164:comment added by 117: 101:comment added by 67: 66: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3431: 3364: 3257: 3192: 3100:I love webcomics 3045:I love webcomics 3020:I love webcomics 3014:BTW: Thank-you 2903: 2898: 2888:Remember the dot 2874: 2869: 2784: 2778: 2774: 2768: 2743:Remember the dot 2705: 2700: 2684:Remember the dot 2662: 2657: 2628:Remember the dot 2584:Remember the dot 2569: 2564: 2541: 2538: 2513:Remember the dot 2300: 2083: 1973: 1915: 1872: 1688:R. K. Milholland 1564: 1474: 1339:Sluggy Freelance 1280:I have reverted 1189: 503: 368: 240: 159: 96: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3439: 3438: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3370: 3347: 3325: 3238: 3189: 3176: 3144:Flash animation 3140: 3031: 3004: 2919: 2901: 2896: 2872: 2867: 2832: 2803: 2782: 2776: 2772: 2766: 2703: 2698: 2660: 2655: 2567: 2562: 2539: 2536: 2530:David Shankbone 2497: 2478: 2460: 2432: 2400: 2398:History Revisit 2349:Antepenultimate 2336:Dinosaur Comics 2301:—The preceding 2291:Antepenultimate 2051:Antepenultimate 2031: 1995:"Online comic" 1988: 1971: 1958:Antepenultimate 1913: 1887:Antepenultimate 1870: 1862: 1810: 1800:Antepenultimate 1773: 1762:Antepenultimate 1738: 1728:Antepenultimate 1720: 1668:created a comic 1655: 1553: 1527:trade paperback 1418: 1253:I have removed 1220: 1190:—The preceding 1174: 1150:wanted to join 870: 695: 601: 583: 303: 189: 72: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3437: 3427: 3426: 3374:Novil Ariandis 3369: 3366: 3324: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3299: 3298: 3237: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3199:76.126.216.236 3188: 3185: 3175: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3139: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3092: 3089: 3030: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3011: 3010: 3006: 3005: 2990: 2987: 2986: 2981: 2980: 2977: 2974: 2971: 2967: 2966: 2962: 2961: 2918: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2881: 2880: 2859: 2831: 2828: 2802: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2780:wikinewsportal 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2590: 2589: 2548: 2547: 2496: 2493: 2477: 2474: 2459: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2431: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2399: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2255: 2240:164.116.70.233 2225: 2224: 2223: 2213: 2209: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2161: 2152: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2030: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 1987: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1956:every day? -- 1921: 1920: 1910: 1906: 1899: 1861: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1845:You might try 1809: 1806: 1791: 1790: 1772: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1737: 1734: 1719: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1654: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1628: 1627: 1552: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1538: 1523:Finder (comic) 1514: 1506: 1497: 1496: 1470: 1427:Ozzyslovechild 1417: 1414: 1379: 1378: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1242:Bob and George 1219: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1173: 1170: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1041: 1040: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1018: 996: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 955:very important 943: 942: 941: 934: 927: 920: 906: 869: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 851: 850: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 775: 771: 768: 765: 762: 759: 756: 714: 713: 705: 704: 694: 691: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 675: 674: 673: 654: 640: 600: 597: 582: 579: 578: 577: 529:PaperDemon.com 499: 498: 497: 496: 495: 494: 438:Bob and George 434: 433: 432: 431: 391: 390: 375:129.21.145.112 355: 354: 353: 352: 351: 350: 302: 299: 298: 297: 296: 295: 294: 293: 292: 291: 290: 289: 188: 185: 184: 183: 182: 181: 127: 126: 125: 71: 68: 65: 64: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3436: 3425: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3404: 3398: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3384: 3383: 3379: 3375: 3365: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3354:60.241.49.114 3351: 3344: 3343: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3301: 3300: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3288:Mynameisnotpj 3285: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3243: 3242: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3215: 3210: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3184: 3182: 3169: 3166: 3165: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3153: 3149: 3145: 3129: 3126: 3122: 3121:Howard Tayler 3118: 3117:Howard Tayler 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3104: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3090: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3046: 3041: 3037: 3035: 3024: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3012: 3008: 3007: 3002: 2998: 2996: 2989: 2988: 2983: 2982: 2978: 2975: 2972: 2969: 2968: 2964: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2943: 2939: 2938:Howard Tayler 2935: 2934: 2930: 2926: 2923: 2908: 2905: 2904: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2889: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2879: 2876: 2875: 2864: 2860: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2833: 2827: 2826: 2823: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2807:Third opinion 2801:Third opinion 2796: 2792: 2788: 2781: 2771: 2763: 2759: 2758: 2747: 2744: 2740: 2737:are notable. 2736: 2732: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2710: 2707: 2706: 2695: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2667: 2664: 2663: 2652: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2629: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2588: 2585: 2580: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2571: 2570: 2560: 2557: 2553: 2546: 2543: 2542: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2522:Third opinion 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2492: 2491: 2488: 2485: 2482: 2473: 2472: 2469: 2465: 2452: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2442: 2438: 2425: 2422: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2413: 2410: 2406: 2393: 2390: 2385: 2381: 2367: 2364: 2360: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2350: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2328: 2324: 2323: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2292: 2287: 2283: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2261: 2256: 2254: 2251: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2241: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2231: 2226: 2222: 2219: 2214: 2210: 2207: 2189: 2186: 2181: 2177: 2176: 2174: 2171: 2167: 2162: 2158: 2153: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2144: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2134: 2130: 2129: 2127: 2124: 2123:196.43.65.126 2120: 2119: 2118: 2115: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2105: 2100: 2094: 2091: 2088: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2072: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2062: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2052: 2047: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2037: 2022: 2019: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2009: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2001: 1998: 1992: 1977: 1974: 1968: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1934:Dayfree Press 1931: 1927: 1926:Comic Genesis 1923: 1922: 1919: 1916: 1911: 1907: 1904: 1900: 1897: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1888: 1884: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1873: 1867: 1855: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1838: 1833: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1805: 1804: 1801: 1796: 1795:contributions 1789: 1787: 1783: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1766: 1763: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1744: 1733: 1732: 1729: 1725: 1711: 1708: 1703: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1694: 1689: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1679: 1675: 1673: 1669: 1666: 1662: 1644: 1641: 1638: 1635: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1626: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1605: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1571:71.141.183.48 1568: 1561: 1557: 1546: 1543: 1539: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1515: 1512: 1507: 1504: 1499: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1481:71.141.183.48 1478: 1471: 1469: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1428: 1424: 1413: 1412: 1409: 1403: 1402: 1399: 1393: 1392: 1389: 1383: 1377: 1374: 1369: 1368: 1363: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1344: 1340: 1327: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1274: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1213: 1210: 1206: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1180: 1169: 1168: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1101: 1097: 1092: 1087: 1079: 1076: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1066: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1047: 1039: 1036: 1031: 1024: 1019: 1016: 1012: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1002: 997: 995: 992: 988: 987: 985: 981: 970: 965: 964: 963: 960: 956: 952: 951: 949: 944: 940: 935: 932: 928: 926: 921: 919: 915: 911: 907: 905: 900: 899: 897: 896: 895: 892: 887: 886: 884: 880: 879: 878: 876: 860: 855: 854: 853: 852: 849: 846: 841: 840: 822: 817: 816: 815: 812: 808: 804: 803: 801: 796: 795: 794: 791: 787: 783: 782: 780: 776: 772: 769: 766: 763: 760: 757: 753: 752: 751: 748: 744: 743: 741: 737: 736: 735: 732: 727: 726: 725: 724: 720: 719:129.21.190.25 710: 709: 708: 701: 700: 699: 690: 689: 686: 672: 669: 665: 664: 663: 660: 655: 652: 648: 647: 645: 641: 638: 634: 630: 629: 627: 622: 621: 620: 618: 614: 610: 605: 596: 595: 592: 588: 576: 573: 569: 568: 567: 566: 563: 558: 557: 552: 551: 546: 544: 539: 534: 530: 525: 523: 519: 515: 511: 510:68.22.198.155 507: 493: 490: 486: 483: 482: 481: 478: 474: 473: 472: 469: 465: 461: 460:8-bit Theatre 457: 456: 455: 454: 451: 447: 443: 439: 430: 427: 426:129.21.190.25 422: 421: 420: 417: 413: 409: 406: 401: 400: 399: 397: 388: 384: 380: 376: 372: 365: 364: 363: 361: 348: 344: 340: 337: 336: 334: 330: 329: 327: 323: 319: 315: 312: 311: 310: 308: 288: 285: 284:ButteredToast 281: 277: 273: 272: 271: 268: 264: 263: 262: 259: 255: 251: 248: 247: 246: 243: 239: 236: 230: 226: 222: 218: 217: 215: 210: 206: 205: 204: 202: 198: 194: 179: 175: 171: 167: 166:129.21.149.48 163: 156: 155: 153: 149: 148: 143: 142: 136: 132: 128: 123: 119: 118: 116: 112: 108: 104: 103:129.21.149.48 100: 93: 92: 91: 89: 85: 81: 77: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 18:Talk:Webcomic 3399: 3388:189.146.4.89 3385: 3371: 3368:Namedropping 3345: 3326: 3304: 3255: 3251: 3247: 3244: 3239: 3211: 3190: 3177: 3163: 3141: 3086: 3082: 3074: 3070: 3053: 3042: 3038: 3032: 3000: 2994: 2992: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2936: 2921: 2920: 2899: 2870: 2817:process. — 2810: 2804: 2761: 2701: 2693: 2679: 2658: 2565: 2555: 2549: 2535: 2521: 2498: 2479: 2461: 2433: 2401: 2332:John Allison 2285: 2272: 2268: 2230:Epameinondas 2156: 2133:RWilliamKing 2114:RWilliamKing 2090:203.221.18.1 2071:RWilliamKing 2032: 2018:RWilliamKing 1993: 1989: 1966: 1949: 1937: 1902: 1896:edit summary 1865: 1863: 1834: 1811: 1793:This user's 1792: 1786:ComiAsia.com 1782:mobile comic 1779: 1774: 1752: 1739: 1721: 1658: 1656: 1622:Abe Dashiell 1613: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1465:Abe Dashiell 1452: 1449:Modern Tales 1441:Penny Arcade 1419: 1408:RWilliamKing 1404: 1398:RWilliamKing 1394: 1388:RWilliamKing 1384: 1380: 1373:Abe Dashiell 1336: 1289: 1221: 1175: 1164:Epameinondas 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1103: 1099: 1094: 1089: 1084: 1042: 1010: 954: 938: 930: 924: 917: 913: 909: 903: 871: 807:Modern Tales 715: 706: 696: 685:RWilliamKing 681: 608: 606: 602: 584: 559: 553: 547: 542: 537: 526: 500: 445: 444:entry lists 442:sprite comic 437: 435: 404: 392: 356: 304: 279: 232: 228: 224: 220: 208: 190: 145: 139: 134: 133:to wikilink 130: 83: 79: 75: 73: 60: 43: 37: 3416:Dragonfiend 3348:—Preceding 3309:Dragonfiend 3258:—Preceding 3222:Dragonfiend 3193:—Preceding 2770:wikinewscat 2597:Jimbo Wales 2556:significant 2405:68.41.85.77 2273:independent 2269:interesting 2185:Dragonfiend 2143:Dragonfiend 2104:Dragonfiend 2008:Dragonfiend 1954:Hi and Lois 1851:Dragonfiend 1818:Swamp Thing 1743:Dragonfiend 1718:Collective? 1707:Dragonfiend 1678:Dragonfiend 1604:Dragonfiend 1565:—Preceding 1531:Phil Foglio 1519:Girl Genius 1475:—Preceding 1323:Dragonfiend 1295:User:Xuanwu 1282:User:Xuanwu 1263:Dragonfiend 1255:User:Xuanwu 1205:68.41.85.77 1196:68.41.85.77 1179:Dragonfiend 1148:Sexy_Losers 1001:Dragonfiend 991:Dragonfiend 891:Dragonfiend 747:Dragonfiend 659:Dragonfiend 504:—Preceding 489:Dragonfiend 450:Dragonfiend 369:—Preceding 214:Ray Radlein 201:Boarder8925 160:—Preceding 152:Ray Radlein 122:Ray Radlein 97:—Preceding 88:Ray Radlein 36:This is an 2509:WP:CONTEXT 2476:Criticisms 2409:Konraden88 1938:equivalent 1903:suggesting 1822:Hellblazer 1757:individual 1551:Criticisms 1209:Konraden88 1154:, or that 1146:, or when 1091:published. 786:comixpedia 533:DeviantArt 314:Doctor Fun 187:Page moved 3096:Knowledge 3001:encourage 2958:Webcomics 2942:webcomics 2902:Shankbone 2873:Shankbone 2819:Athaenara 2741:is not. — 2735:Webcomics 2704:Shankbone 2661:Shankbone 2601:Knowledge 2568:Shankbone 2307:Werty8472 2282:punk rock 2218:BoatThing 2170:BoatThing 2166:BoatThing 2029:Knowledge 1972:brenneman 1946:Webcomics 1930:Dumbrella 1914:brenneman 1871:brenneman 1837:bodnotbod 1542:BlueNight 1286:WP:VANITY 1259:WP:VANITY 1224:Real Life 1060:Megatokyo 1056:Real Life 959:DNicholls 845:DNicholls 707:or this: 591:DNicholls 396:bcRIPster 229:web comic 227:(or just 225:web-comic 221:web-comic 193:Web comic 147:Megatokyo 61:Archive 1 3403:dmkrantz 3350:unsigned 3330:3D comic 3272:contribs 3260:unsigned 3214:dmkrantz 3195:unsigned 3181:dmkrantz 3083:webcomic 2762:official 2552:Wikinews 2451:dmkrantz 2421:Arounova 2315:contribs 2303:unsigned 2061:Blastron 1997:Arounova 1986:Concepts 1866:de facto 1814:Watchmen 1771:Linkspam 1579:contribs 1567:unsigned 1503:Garfield 1489:contribs 1477:unsigned 1307:Webcomic 1303:Webcomic 1192:unsigned 1172:Business 1152:Keenspot 693:Fan bias 562:BogusRed 518:contribs 506:unsigned 383:contribs 371:unsigned 276:webcomic 197:Webcomic 174:contribs 162:unsigned 111:contribs 99:unsigned 3075:boycott 2787:Bawolff 2731:notable 2637:JoshuaZ 2605:JoshuaZ 2540:Annyong 2468:Starwed 1826:Cerebus 1437:Dilbert 1359:Tamfang 1343:Tamfang 1315:Voltron 1309:again, 572:Esurnir 477:Gentaur 278:." Of 235:Michael 39:archive 3334:Elfguy 3264:TheSaj 3241:thesaj 3164:Yamara 2997:comics 2849:Nifboy 2680:at all 2441:DHaber 2073:22:14- 1942:Comics 1909:lower. 1753:bottom 1406:as. -- 1319:WP:NOT 1311:WP:WEB 1273:Xuanwu 1246:Xuanwu 1156:PayPal 1075:Xuanwu 1065:Nifboy 1046:Xuanwu 1035:Nifboy 1023:Kainee 1015:Kainee 984:Kainee 969:Kainee 948:Kainee 883:Kainee 875:Kainee 868:Medium 859:Kainee 821:Kainee 800:Kainee 779:Kainee 755:cited: 740:Kainee 721:22:36- 668:Nifboy 644:Nifboy 626:AlainV 617:Nifboy 581:Awards 468:Nifboy 412:Gwalla 360:AlainV 343:Gwalla 322:Gwalla 280:course 254:Gwalla 76:Themes 70:Themes 3125:RJFJR 3062:RJFJR 3034:RJFJR 3016:RJFJR 2925:RJFJR 2897:David 2868:David 2699:David 2656:David 2563:David 2537:Hello 2526:WP:3O 2458:Image 2389:Lee M 2340:Fleen 1967:prose 1849:. -- 1672:Candi 1453:maybe 1261:. -- 1232:Kizor 1011:moved 729:it.-- 609:truly 405:start 135:every 16:< 3420:talk 3392:talk 3378:talk 3358:talk 3338:talk 3313:talk 3292:talk 3268:talk 3226:talk 3203:talk 3152:talk 2929:talk 2853:talk 2791:talk 2775:and 2694:less 2641:talk 2609:talk 2599:and 2507:and 2487:VTNC 2483:and 2464:xkcd 2382:The 2363:8472 2311:talk 2260:8472 2250:8472 2036:8472 1950:here 1932:and 1828:and 1640:VTNC 1636:and 1614:much 1597:and 1575:talk 1533:and 1521:and 1485:talk 1353:ah, 1200:talk 811:Kiba 790:Kiba 788:. -- 731:Kiba 651:Kiba 587:WCCA 514:talk 416:Talk 379:talk 347:Talk 333:Kiba 326:Talk 307:Kiba 267:8472 258:Talk 209:have 170:talk 150:. -- 107:talk 80:nuke 3284:PvP 3148:B7T 3079:pun 3058:pun 2995:web 2830:RFC 2811:not 2157:the 1693:JQF 1620:. – 1463:. – 1459:to 1313:, 1291:... 1288:: " 1228:PvP 1086:to: 195:to 144:or 131:not 84:use 3422:) 3401:-- 3394:) 3380:) 3360:) 3340:) 3315:) 3307:-- 3294:) 3274:) 3270:• 3228:) 3205:) 3154:) 3036:: 2950:is 2931:) 2866:-- 2855:) 2822:✉ 2793:) 2783:}} 2777:{{ 2773:}} 2767:{{ 2643:) 2611:) 2317:) 2313:• 2286:is 2258:-- 2183:-- 2175:) 2128:) 2102:-- 2002:. 1824:, 1820:, 1816:, 1593:, 1581:) 1577:• 1491:) 1487:• 1305:, 1301:, 1293:" 1162:" 1021:-- 615:. 520:) 516:• 414:| 410:— 385:) 381:• 345:| 341:— 324:| 320:— 256:| 252:— 238:Z. 176:) 172:• 113:) 109:• 3418:( 3390:( 3376:( 3356:( 3336:( 3311:( 3290:( 3266:( 3224:( 3201:( 3150:( 2960:? 2927:( 2851:( 2789:( 2639:( 2607:( 2582:— 2321:. 2309:( 1788:. 1573:( 1483:( 1357:— 1198:( 512:( 377:( 233:— 168:( 105:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index