User talk:Videowizard2006

Re: Comixpedia
First, I need to correct you on something; the 400 Wiki imports (now closer to 500) are not necessarily articles that have been deleted from Wikipedia. Like Megatokyo. Compare it to the Megatokyo article on Comixpedia. The biggest difference is the fact that all of Comixpedia has almost no images on it at all (which is a fairly long story). Personally, I blame Eric Burns for this entire mess, but that's an even longer story and not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

Second, I'm sick and tired of the Wikipedia hate. Forgive us for having some standards. The reason those standards are applied the way they are is because there's no way to verify most webcomics' articles. My webcomic has no sources other than myself. Since I, as an inherently biased author, am not a reliable source, my webcomic cannot have its own article. The same goes for almost all other webcomics. Nifboy 04:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Closer to 500? It continues. Though maybe not all of the imports are articles deleted from Wikipedia, I have a feeling a lot of them are. Second, if I were to write an article on your webcomic, it would be the same problem. Your site wouldn't be a reliable source, either. Third, if "there's no way to verify most webcomics' articles", why not take them all down? Just make searches for them redirects to the appropriate comic site. As I've already stated, it is pointless for Wikipedia to duplicate the existing sites' (CG and Comixpedia) Wiki directories. This also works because, like it or not, some notable webcomic authors (such as the one of Checkerboard Nightmare) already feel that Wikipedia is a useless source for webcomic information (which I unfortunately agree with them). I looked at the Secret of Mana Theater article (for example), and I fail to see what is so notable about that. Also, I don't know why 2-3 people can shut an article down. Having 10 votes is hardly a large enough sample from the community to allow an article to be deleted, especially when there is no way to check that 5 of these people are Dragonfiend's friends, a well-noted nominator of articles for deletion.

Fourth, this is supposed to be a site for everyone. If your article is simply a description of the characters and the comic's history, and not "LOL, go to teh forumz", or "My comic is da BOMB" what harm does it do to put the word out there? Also, Alexa is no longer supposed to be used as criteria for an article, yet that is what DF has been doing. In fact, I'm thinking about proposing a new standard for webcomics to end this fighting.

I feel that it is fine to have an article on your webcomic, as long as: 1) It has been around for at least 6 months. 2) It has at least 20 comics in those six months, 70 by the end of 18 months (if a weekly), or 15 comics in 18 months for a monthly. 3) It doesn't go around saying it's the greatest comic ever. It is okay, however, to mention improvements since earlier editions. 4) It at least talks about the characters, mentions the time it started and its website link, and should have some history. That's all. If it isn't well-written, mark for cleanup. If the comic becomes inactive (three months without update) for a long time (like RPG World), it should go into the Inactive list for six months, after which, it can be an AfD (Article for Deletion). Inappropriate articles can go into AfD or SD, depending on severity. Completed webcomics like Kid Radd would be exempt from the Inactive list, and would go under the Completed list.

Finally, to verify, is it so hard to go to said website and look through the archives? I didn't notice anyone checking to see if the info was correct besides DF, which doesn't exactly instill confidence in me. --Videowizard2006 05:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll try to keep this brief (didn't happen, oh well), and use bullets.


 * On deletion: A full list of webcomic AfD's can be found here. I'm willing to wager you've never heard of a vast majority of those which have been deleted. My own personal experience is that a vast majority also fall in the same boat as Dragon Kingdoms (had one that didn't even exist yet, and three that only had three strips in archive).


 * On WP:V: Why do you think most webcomics that get put up for deletion get deleted? Because they're unverifiable. A website cannot verify itself; if I claimed in my own webcomic that I had a million hits each day, that's a completely unreliable source because I'm the one who made it. I could easily have 20 (or two hundred, or two thousand) active users on my forum if I created them all.
 * You also might check here where those of us debating the policy took a basket of comics and checked for, amongst other things, press coverage. You'd be surprised at what you find just by digging through Google.


 * On changing criteria: Gooood luck. Make sure you check the website criteria talk page and its four pages of archives, since some 95% of it concerns webcomics specifically (the earlier archives taken from what used to be a webcomics-specific inclusion criteria). It covers basically every conceivable argument that's been put out.
 * Although not required reading, you also might check out Requests for arbitration/Webcomics, wherein an editor took Dragonfiend to "court" for nominating a bunch of webcomics for deletion. Long story short, very little happened.
 * Part of the problem was when Eric Burns first suggested making Wikipedia a place to store webcomics info, he suggested the laughably low criteria of 100 comics in archive. Wikipedians haven't taken longevity seriously since. Right before the decision to create Comixpedia.org, I had proposed changing the criteria to 500 comics and/or 3 years of regular updates. Nobody seemed to notice.


 * On Wikipedia itself, and advertising: I suggest familiarizing yourself with the official policy page on what Wikipedia is not. Most editors will react very negatively if they encounter anything that smells like advertising.


 * On AfD: Yes, AfD is broken. Everybody knows this, but there isn't an obvious better solution. Only reason only a handful vote is a larger number see the nomination but don't vote because it's not controversial. A majority of editors don't see webcomics as being any more important than any other website, and vote accordingly.


 * On the importance of webcomics: As Howard Taylor said in a recent blog: ""webcomics” are just “independent” or “indie” comics whose principal method of distribution is the internet. In all other aspects they’re so similar as makes no difference at all." Wikipedia doesn't really "owe" anything to "the webcomic community".
 * Also, your argument about "turning away editors" doesn't take into account the quality of the editor: If an editor only writes on one article of little importance, then it doesn't much matter if six or six thousand are turned away.
 * I apologise that your introduction to Wikipedia is so... jarring. Policy is a pain in the ass, and the majority of conflicts occur over what should or should not be in Wikipedia. Nifboy 07:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: The first comic of a certain type...
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with Dragon Kingdoms, which is why I haven't voted on it. I won't promise you anything, but I will budget some time to look into it. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 04:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)