Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Webcomics/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Annual membership survey

About this time last year I looked into which editors in this work group are actually active, and decided to do so the same again.

Methodology

I defined the following groups:

Active participant: Both:
- Listed on the group's participant page or with the infobox on their username (and if they had the infobox I added them to the page), and
- Edited Wikipedia in the last three years.
Inactive participant: Listed on the page, not an active participant, and either:
- Edited Wikipedia in the last five years, or
- Has the infobox on their userpage.
Not a participant: Any editor not meeting the above two definitions (even if they were listed on the page).

I also defined a subgroup of active participant, power user, defined as an active participant who has edited a webcomics article within the last 12 months.

Results

We have 33 active participants. Along with another 24 inactive participants, there are a total of 57 participants according to my definition.

Within this, we have 4 power users:

(I also found another four active participants that had edited a comic article, but not a webcomic article.)

So we are a small group, smaller than our old long list of editors would have suggested. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@HenryCrun15: ~~What's the definition of a power user?~~ Nevermind, I read it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Notably, from what I've seen, I think Webcomics Work Group members do often have a particular interest in webcomics over other subjects (like comics), so despite the small group of active members/power users, we do still form a distinct community/grouping. The fact that numbers are low doesn't surprise me, but I am curious about how statistics compare to last year, or to five years ago. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Looking for reviews on a number of articles

Hi all,

I've been looking to upgrade a number of webcomic articles from C-class to B-class. Unfortunately the Assessment section of WikiProject Comics is all but dead. If anyone here on the Webcomics Work Group would like to review these articles, I'd be very grateful.

The ones I have upgraded and hope to get to B-class are:

HenryCrun15 (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@HenryCrun15: I did a review on Sarah's Scribbles (now B-class) and Chris Crosby (comics) (still C). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @MJL:, that's very much appreciated! HenryCrun15 (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on the Webcomics work group

I started a discussion on the Webcomics work group that people here might be interested in (for obvious reasons). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

infobox completeness

This cardgame kinda summarises what facts might be available about webcomics to fill out infoboxen: https://cardgame.morr.cc/?Q213369&lang=en Arlo James Barnes 23:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Importance parameter

@HenryCrun15: I am going to be honest. I think having an importance parameter is a mistake we should not make if we are going to do things from scratch here. It almost never adds anything of substance to a WikiProject and leads to inevitable slow-moving edit wars about which articles should be considered "important". WikiProjects like LGBT Studies and Women get along just fine without an importance parameter, and I think we should follow that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, that seems fair. Do other people have any comments on this? HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@HenryCrun15: By the way, check out {{WikiProject Webcomics/sandbox}}. It's effectively a wrapper template for {{WikiProject Comics}} and allows for easy replacement (every category will transfer over somewhat seamlessly). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Since the scope of WP Webcomics is pretty regular and predictable, there are few articles within scope that wouldn't be important (and very few that would be more important at all... webcomics itself obviously, perhaps medium details like infinite canvas? Not many). So I agree article quality and notability should be the basic criteria by which the project is organised. Arlo James Barnes 01:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Nimona has been given Good Article status

Here's an early success for WikiProject Webcomics – the article on the webcomic Nimona has been reviewed and given Good Article status! I think this is a great success and worth noting. HenryCrun15 (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

Introducing the Webcomic Barnstar. Jerm (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Clearing out the request list

There are now only two articles requested on our request page. I've looked into both and I don't think either subject is notable enough for an article. Before I remove them from the list, I thought it would be good to get more opinions.

Fredo and Pidjin

Submitter noted these sources: [1] [2]

I don't think these two sources demonstrate notability, and in my searches I didn't find any further coverage from reliable sources on the comic. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

ChemScrapes

Submitter said: "Chemistry themed cartoons drawn by Brendan A Burkett [3]. ChemScrapes. Creator of Sketch Chemistry [4]. Profile [5]. Known in online chemistry community [6]. Cover art [7], [8], [9], [10]. Abstract Art [11]. Editorial highlights from Chemical and Engineering News [12], [13]. Other invited chemistry illustrations in reputed magazines/journals [14], [15], [16]. Paperback collection published 2018 [17]. Drew visuals for Wikipedia's "Mole Day" collaboration with Matt Hartings of American University [18]."

These sources demonstrate the work in question, but don't appear to demonstrate notability. Has ChemScrapes received significant coverage from third parties (eg entities not publishing the work)? In my searches I wasn't able to find significant coverage of this work, so I am not convinced that it meets the general notability guidelines. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Editor writing articles for Webtoon

An editor called GriffinFreitas has recently joined and is being paid to create articles on Webtoon webcomics. I'm supportive of this; I bring it up just because people might want to keep an eye on their work for neutrality. HenryCrun15 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

New to editing, looking for feedback!

Hello everyone! I tried my hand at editing Lore Olympus, a personal favorite webcomic of mine. I edited a small portion and added a citation- two things I've never done before. There are a few more changes I'd like to make to that page for clarity and ease of reading but I don't want to go too crazy before someone checks my work. Is there someone on here that has time to pop over and make sure I didn't mess anything up? (All feedback, constructive criticism included, is welcome!) SilmarilElwing 21:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi SilmarilElwing! Thanks for coming to this project and for editing the Lore Olympus article.

It's great that you've added a source to the article. The key advice I'd give is that sources need to be "reliable" - broadly, that the source is trustworthy and what they say is likely correct. Fandom.com isn't a reliable source because anyone can write there with no way of confirming that what they've written is accurate.

What I'd recommend instead is citing the webcomic itself. Citing primary sources is okay for basic facts. For a work of literature like a book or a comic, it's fine to present basic facts like plot points by citing the work itself. (Any deeper interpretations would need a secondary source though.)

So if you're interested in improving Lore Olympus's plot and character sections, I'd recommend citing the comic itself. Thanks again for your work! HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellent point! That was one of my concerns. I read the comic on my phone via the WebToons app. Do you know how I'd cite it? Should I use the template for a 'book'? I'll change the citation as soon as I figure out how to do that. Happy to contribute and thanks for the guidance! SilmarilElwing 01:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Concerned listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Concerned to be moved to Concerned: The Half-Life and Death of Gordon Frohman. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

template:mass notification

Would enabling it for this project be a good or bad idea? I'll note we have <50 participants currently. Arlo James Barnes 03:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I would be happy to opt into such a feature, though I am not sure if we would want to send notifications to people who haven't opted into this specific aspect. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I would be happy with this, as long o it is clear what is happening and easy to opt out. HenryCrun15 (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Fan (web) comics

Hello! I am new here and interested in helping with this project. My question is - are notable fan comics something that can be included? I have seen articles on other fan-made content, so I wasn't sure if that would be a good subject to make an article on. Caseyjhall (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Caseyjhall and great to have you here! Absolutely these can be included. See for example Concerned, a webcomic that used assets from Half-Life 2. If it's notable, make an article, and if it's a webcomic, add it to this project. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

We indeed have two articles on sprite comics, and Brawl in the Family is another good example. That being said, the hard part is finding webcomics that have been covered in-depth by reliable sources, to meet our general notability guidelines. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

We do not typically use A-class within the context of our project, which I believe counts as a non-standard approach. However, I don't see a reason for us not to accept that classification. I don't know if any action is required for our project. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)