Talk:T.H.E. Fox

Reading the strip
If you wish to see these images, try using ConGo in Windows 98 compatibility mode, having renamed the files to have a .gg extension - or let me know, I can get you a converted copy. GreenReaper (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Publications
Been trying to track down the references in the interview and biography (BIO-T.FOX5.TXT) to publications of strip and/or its characters in TC 128/64 and the San Bernardino Sun. I managed to find this: Twin Cities 128/64 (TC128) Parsec, Incorporated P.O. Box 111 Salem, MA 01970-0111 (508) 745-5855 I'll ask the author if he can remember which one it was, and/or has a scan. According to the interview, the file oj.gif was one of those submitted to the Sun. GreenReaper (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sure the San Bernardino Sun is achieved somewhere, but I don't think it is digitally. If Joe has a scanned copy or a cut out, that would be helpful. I will see if I can find anything more about TC 128/64. RP9 (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, it has an archive . . . but only back to 1998, which is after he said he contributed. GreenReaper (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I remember this from somewhere! But I forgot where. /sarcasm :) RP9 (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The interview mentions Carousel Trader magazine and some other magazine "dedicated to the Pern series" that included the comic. Also Super Crew Comics apparently published or was going to publish 12 panels from T.H.E. Fox in a special edition called "SCC Super Spiffy Springtime Special". But... what I think is more important, is to find Joe's appearance on The Gone Show, that sounds way too amusing to pass up. ;) RP9 (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's this, but that's just corny. Though the fact that Thaddeus was turned into a fursuit (2), and was mentioned in the FT Magazine could be included, as could his escapades on Rapid T. Rabbit and Friends (episodes 301, 366 and special T.FOX). GreenReaper (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose, but I was primary being sarcastic about The Gone Show. Carousel Trader is still readily available so if I knew which one it was in, that could be used. RP9 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"Earliest known online comic"
I dropped an email to the author of A History of Webcomics to confirm the "earliest" claim in Economics and Comics, and here's what I got: At this writing, I can't find anything earlier than, or contemporary with, *T.H.E. Fox*.

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

When I wrote and published *A History of Webcomics*, I didn't know about *T.H.E. Fox.* My earliest "online comic" citation then (not counting some forerunners that weren't really comics) was *Where The Buffalo Roam* from six years later. After my publication, a reader turned me on to some of the creator's interviews and I realized there was enough to verify his 1986 claim. I think it's reasonable to got with what the references say, given that statement. It's possible that the "oldest known" will change again - just as it's now changed from Where The Buffalo Roam - but six years is a long jump, and right now it's what we can verify from a published source. Or, for that matter, from several published sources. GreenReaper (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we cannot verify this form a published source. All you can say is that it is the earliest that this person knows, and that's a really bad thing to write in an encyclopedia. "First he knows" does not equal "first known." Blackbirdz (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It does when they're an expert published by a reliable source. How else could such assertions be made? This is not "some guy", this is "the guy who did the research and wrote the book." It is his job to know, and the job of his publishers (Antarctic Press, a 25-year-old comic publishing company) and of Newsarama (the well-known online comic news service) to know that he knows, and to choose him to write their books and provide facts for their article. That's how verifiability works. GreenReaper (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Turning the question around: is there any reliable source - or any source at all - that claims to know of an earlier one? Nobody appears to have challenged the Newsarama article, and there's been over a year to do so. Conversely, there is plenty of evidence that this comic did exist at the stated time. Logically, if there are no known online comics earlier than this one, then it must be the earliest known. GreenReaper (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Judging by what I'm seeing here and elsewhere, he doesn't look like either an expert or a reliable source. Again, the first one they know of doesn't mean it's the first anyone knows of, as they've already proven by writing a book where they said the first online comic was published in 1992. We should not publish this, so I'm removing this disputed text in favor of a compromise which I think we can all agree on: That this is an early online comic. Blackbirdz (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel "among" is a misrepresentation - it implies we know of others published at a similar time, and you can't use nonexistant sources to prove that they might exist (five years later is not "similar"). Again, I ask you: do you have a source to indicate other comics published before 1991? For that matter, do you honestly doubt that this comic was being published online in 1986? GreenReaper (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, your own extremely unreliable source even says his “Resources are limited here so it's possible that something earlier might emerge in the future.” And he's right to have doubts about this, because THIS SOURE HAS BEEN WRONG ABOUT THIS VERY FACT BEFORE AND IS NOT CONSIDERED A RELIABLE SOURCE IN HIS FIELD. So, it's among the earliest, that's all we can reliably say. To answer your questions: 1) Yes, I have plenty of sources that comics were published before 1991. They've been published since the 1800s. 2) I have not considered the 1986 date enough to raise doubts about it. Blackbirdz (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not his source, I added it, blame me. Despite the possibility of the existence of earlier comics or his potential lack of investigation into whether earlier comics exist does not change that it is the first known according to him and no one else has cared to investigate further. He is only saying that it is possible an earlier comic might be found in the future. Which does not change that it is the earliest that he knows of now. RP9 (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not write about "earliest we know." Let's write about what reliable sources know. This is not a reelable source. Blackbirdz (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Better? RP9 (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Guide
I was thinking that because the way the files are sorted in the archive is not exactly self evident and some of the formats used are not supported in most software, that a guide could be created explaining how to work with the files and how to convert them. Of course, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, so I was thinking it could be created elsewhere and externally linked.

The file organization (index) is not that hard, just takes some thinking. However, the file formats are a lot more annoying. The compressed Koala Paint (GG) files are supported in a few programs. The uncompressed Koala Paint files are supported in a few open source programs as well, so if I could figure out how it is compressed that might help expand the possible options. The ".SRS" files on the other hand are nowhere to be found. However, I have managed to glean a few thing about them; they are compressed, do not use magic numbers, are probably not using a standard file extension, and are similar to Koala Paint files when compressed, but someone who is a lot more familiar with reading binary files would probably have better shot at this.

Any suggestions on a website to use? RP9 (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1998 or 1999?
Just realised: are we counting the comic strips published on VCL? RP9 (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think so, given that we counted the strips published on another hosting service. GreenReaper (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, t-winky would be the last comic then? RP9 (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Depending on when it was created. Unfortunately it doesn't have a data attached (others have been uploaded out of order in the past). Still it seems in the "new style". GreenReaper (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it only matters when they were published. Were they uploaded elsewhere to have been uploaded out of order on VCL? Also, do you think we could use Joe as a primary source if need be? RP9 (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know. If anywhere I would guess his website. I think he would be a reasonable primary source for non-controversial statements about his own work. GreenReaper (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed mention of Witches and Stitches
I have removed this statement about Witches and Stitches before because it does not belong here. It didn't have a source before. Now its been added back without any discussion and with a collage magazine written by no one important. According to it "The first webcomic was Witches and Stitches, started in 1985 by Eric Millikin. In 1995, others began to post their creations as well." This is just wrong, Where the Buffalo Roam (webcomic) was published on Usenet in 1991 which amusingly is the statement removed from this article to include the one about Witches and Stitches. But ignoring the ridiculousness of this 10 year gap either T.H.E. Fox does not exist or this articles undisputed creation and publication date of 1986 is wrong. In my opinion this is just an example of bad journalism. It is a history that reads more like an introduction to webcomics that fails to mention to us that the Web did not exist in 1985.

Witches and Stitches does not have an article on Wikipedia, its a redirect to the authors page which itself makes no mention of it being the first of anything. I don't edit Wikipedia often and I don't know much about its policies but I don't think this not so credible "fact" should piggyback on an irreverent article with less eyes on it. We get the idea that its one of the first-which is all we know with how it was worded. I'm removing it again.

I propose that before anyone decides to add mention of Witches and Stitches again that they do the following: Find a credible source. Make sure its discussed and considered to be quite credible for what its actually claiming. Then add it to the authors articles mention of it or Witches and Switches own article if it ever gets one, not this one. At that point then we could discus here whether paying tribute to it in this article makes any since at all. I recommend that mention of it be removed from Where the Buffalo Roam's article and any other early online comics article that seems to creepily have mentions of Witches and Stitches as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.202.103 (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)