text:
Vampirella

Vampirella is a vampire superheroine created by Forrest J Ackerman and comic book artist Trina Robbins in Warren Publishing's black-and-white horror comics magazine Vampirella #1 (Sept. 1969), a sister publication of Creepy and Eerie.

Writer-editor Archie Goodwin later developed the character from horror-story hostesses, in which capacity she remained through issue #8 (Nov. 1970), to a horror-drama leading character. The magazine was published continuously until 1983, when Warren Publishing ceased operations and its assets were bought by Harris Publications. Vampirella comics, both new and reprints, have continued through various publishers into the 21st century.

Warren Publishing
Vampirella initially appeared in Warren Publishing's black-and-white horror-comics magazine Vampirella #1 (Sept. 1969), running to issue #112 (March 1983), plus a 1972 annual reprinting stories from the series, and a 1977 special with color reprints of José González stories. The title was a sister magazine of Warren's horror anthologies Creepy and Eerie. Like those magazines' respective mascots, Uncle Creepy and Cousin Eerie, Vampirella hosted horror stories, though unlike them, she would also star in her own story, which would headline each issue. Vampirella was initially edited by Bill Parente. It was later edited by Archie Goodwin (issues #7–12, 34–35), Billy Graham (#13–16), Bill DuBay (#21–50, 87–95, 101–102) and Louise Jones (#51–86).

According to comics historian Richard J. Arndt, "Forrest Ackerman created, or at least had a strong hand in creating, Vampirella and he clearly had a major influence in shaping the lighthearted bad-girl story style of this issue as well." Her costume and hair style were designed by comics artist Trina Robbins. The character's first story artist was Tom Sutton. Artist Frank Frazetta's first-issue cover was a substitute for the original cover by European artist Aslan.

José González became the character's primary artist starting with issue #12. Other artists who drew Vampirella during her magazine's original run included Gonzalo Mayo, Leopold Sanchez, Esteban Maroto, José Ortiz, Escolano, Rudy Nebres, Ramon Torrents, Pablo Marcos, Jim Janes, John Lakey, Val Lakey, and Louis Small Jr.

Backup features appearing in Vampirella included "Tomb of the Gods", "Pantha" and "Fleur". Vampirella herself also appeared in a story with fellow Warren characters Pantha and the Rook in Eerie #94–95, and with most of the Warren characters in a company crossover special in Eerie #130.

Harris Publications
Upon Warren's bankruptcy shortly afterward, Harris Publications acquired the company assets at auction in August 1983, although legal murkiness and a 1999 lawsuit by Warren publisher James Warren resulted in his reacquisition of the rights to sister publications Creepy and Eerie. Harris Comics published Vampirella stories in various series and miniseries from 1991 to 2007, beginning with Vampirella #113 (1988), a one-issue continuation of the original series, containing Vampirella reprints and one unrelated new story. Harris subsequently published the all-reprint one-shot Vampirella vs. the Cult of Chaos, and the four-issue miniseries Vampirella: Morning in America (Sept. 1991 - April 1992) by writer Kurt Busiek and penciler Louis La Chance. Three ongoing series followed:
 * Vampirella #1–5, followed by #0 (Nov. 1992 – Dec. 1994), primarily by plotter Busiek, scriptwriter Tom Sniegoski, and penciler Louis Small Jr.;
 * Vengeance of Vampirella #1–25 (April 1994 – April 1996) by writer Sniegoski and artist Aldrin Aw (under the pseudonym Buzz), and later pencilers including Kirk Van Wormer, Kevin Sharpe, David Perrin, Chris Batista, and Amanda Conner.
 * Vampirella Strikes #1–7 (Oct. 1995 – Oct. 1996) by writers Sniegoski, David Quinn, Mark Millar, and Ian Edginton, and pencilers including Ed McGuinness, Karl Moline, and Rudy Nebres.

The three-issue miniseries Vampirella Lives (Dec. 1996 – Feb. 1997) featured writer Warren Ellis and penciler Conner.

Additionally, Harris published several one-shots: Vampirella Summer Nights (title per its trademarked cover logo) / Vampirella's Summer Nights (as in the indicia's copyright information) (1992), by writer Steve Englehart and penciler Joe Brozowski (under the pseudonym J. J. Birch), Vampirella/Shadowhawk: Creatures of the Night (Feb. 1995), Vampirella Pin-Up Special (Oct. 1995), and Vengeance of Vampirella: The Mystery Walk (Nov. 1995).

Harris also published many reprints. The 1993 trade-paperback collection Vampirella: The Dracula War reprinted a serialized story from Harris' Vampirella #1–4. The 1994 Cain / Vampirella Flip Book reprinted a 1993 Vampirella story by writer Busiek and artist Arthur Adams from Harris' Creepy 1993 Fearbook. The five-issue Vampirella Classic (Feb.–Nov. 1995) reprinted Warren stories. Vengeance of Vampirella: Bloodshed (March 1995) reprinted a serialized story from the Vengeance of Vampirella series.

The publisher additionally reprinted Warren stories in the trade paperback Vampirella: Transcending Time & Space (1992), Vampirella: A Scarlet Thirst (1993), and Vampirella & The Blood Red Queen of Hearts (1996); and the series Vampirella of Drakulon #1–5, followed by #0 (Jan.–Nov. 1996).

At the Fangoria Weekend of Horrors convention in January 2007, Scott Licina, editor-in-chief of Fangoria Comics, announced his company had acquired the character from Harris. However, on April 30, 2007, Harris editor Bon Alimagno denied there had been such an arrangement in place and that Fangoria's claim was "not factual". Harris subsequently launched the title Vampirella Quarterly.

Dynamite Entertainment
On March 17, 2010, Dynamite Entertainment acquired the rights to Vampirella from Harris Comics. The publisher started a new ongoing series with Vampirella #1, in November 2010. A new monthly series, Vampirella and the Scarlet Legion, was released in May 2011 following the main title. The series lasted 38 issues before concluding in January 2014.

The title was rebooted in June 2014 with Vampirella vol. 2, #1 by author Nancy Collins. The 2014 series continued with Volume 3 in March 2016, which was noted for giving Vampirella a new costume.

A second reboot and fourth relaunch overall, Vampirella vol. 4, began in 2017. The series was first written by Paul Cornell, and later by Jeremy Whitley.

A fifth relaunch, written by Christopher Priest and Ergun Gündüz, began publication in July 2019 and commemorated the character's 50th anniversary. The run lasted 25 issues long and ended with Vampirella's marriage to Dracula.

In 2019, Dynamite also revived the series Vengeance of Vampirella, which had been the name of a Harris-era comic, and hired the original writer of that series, Thomas Sniegoski, to write a continuation of the original series.

Dynamite has published several other series and one shots featuring Vampirella, including but not limited to Die!namite (2020), Vampirella vs Purgatori (2020), Vampiverse (2021), Vampirella/Dracula: Unholy! (2021), The Vamp (2022), Vampirella: Mindwarp (2022), Vampirella vs. Superpowers (2022), and Vampirella: Year One (2022).

In celebration of the character's 55th anniversary, Dynamite wil be counting runs and one shots  throughout Vampirella's history to renumber the comic 666 and call the new  arc called "Beyond".

Mike The Pike Productions
On March 2, 2021, Mike The Pike Productions, Inc.'s subsidiary Arowana Media Holdings, Inc. acquired the worldwide film, television and streaming rights to Dynamite Entertainment's Vampirella. Including stories, characters, and derivative works of the Vampirella universe.

Fictional character biography
Vampirella originally hails from the planet Drakulon, a world where blood flows like water and where the natives, called the Vampiri, share traditionally vampiric characteristics. Drakulon orbits a binary star which causes continuous droughts throughout the year. These droughts gradually dry up the Vampiri's blood supply; threatening them with extinction. Vampirella's journey begins when an American space shuttle crashes on Drakulon. Hoping to save her people, she travels to Earth and begins hunting dark remnants of her own race. Earth's vampires originate from Dracula, a forgotten member of the Vampiri race who left his homeworld centuries ago only to be corrupted by the demonic entity known as Chaos.

Harris continuity
After relaunching Vampirella with the miniseries Morning In America, written by Kurt Busiek, Harris Comics published the story "Mystery Walk", which revised Vampirella's origin. She learns she is, in fact, the daughter of Lilith, whom popular medieval Jewish lore depicts as the first wife of Adam. Lilith would not submit to Adam and, cast out of Eden by God, spawned demons. She later repented and went to Eden to bear children to fight the evil she had created. Her first attempt was Madek and Magdalene, who turned to evil; Vampirella was her second. Madek and Magdalene brainwashed her into believing she was from Drakulon.

Further retcons were presented in Vampirella Lives and in Blood Lust. Drakulon is real, but is a place in Hell. Vampirella was brought to Eden, not born there. It was Lilith, not Madek and Magdalene, who made believe Drakulon was another planet. Vampirella restores the rivers of blood to Drakulon, which weakens Lilith, who is killed by the hand of God.

A further revision in the "World's End" storyline revealed Lilith did not really repent and raised Vampirella to be good because she wanted to release the Heart of Darkness (heart of the fallen angel Malkuth) from Metatron's lance, which could only be done by a good person. Another retcon, in Vampirella: Revelations, reveals the reason Lilith raised Vampirella to be good was that the existence of vampires made Lilith weaker and she wanted someone to kill them. Lilith used a magic mirror to make Vampirella believe whatever variation on her origin was necessary at the time.

Dynamite continuities
In the initial Dynamite-published series, Vampirella works reluctantly with Dracula against a rebellious cult of his former followers. Acquiring Sofia Murray as her sidekick, Vampirella becomes involved in a plot by the Vatican that ultimately resurrects Von Kreist and leads to Sofia's death. Vampirella severs her ties with the Vatican and finds herself working for the forces of Order again. Reuniting with a resurrected Van Helsing, Pendragon, and other characters from the Warren Magazine run, Vampirella visits the future and discovers the world destroyed by the supernatural. Trying to form a supernatural kingdom to contradict this, Vampirella falls prey to a conspiracy by Dracula and a group of vampire knights that result in reality becoming unraveled. Lilith banishes Vampirella from her universe in order to save her.

Vampirella was relaunched with Our Lady Of Shadows as an agent of the Vatican before being relaunched again with a new costume in Hollywood Horror under author Kate Leth. In this universe, Vampirella has recently come to Earth and become a Hollywood scream queen. She lives with her live-in boyfriend Tristan and butler Coleridge.

After falling into a thousand-year sleep, Vampirella awakes in a bizarre, dystopian future, where she meets her new sidekick and girlfriend, Vicki, and a black cat she names Grit. After going on a journey through her own mind, Vampirella learns she has absorbed all the memories and experiences of a hundred Vampirellas from parallel universes.

According to the Hack/Slash series, Vampirella currently works as a radio talk show host and has several times teamed up with Cassie and her partner Vlad to stop demons and vampires instead of the standard slashers the series is known for. She and Vlad have an intense physical attraction and relationship, but broke up because his nomadic lifestyle did not mesh with hers.

In the 2019 version by Christopher Priest, the writer incorporated all the previous versions of the character's history to make a comprehensive revision of Vampirella's back story. Vampirella has been on Earth for 50 years, and Draklon is an alternate version of Earth's moon. The alternate version of Earth is called Arcadia. Drakulon and Arcadia were at war which caused Aracadia to die out and Drakulon became an archaic society.

Powers and abilities
Vampirella possesses many of the typical powers of mythological vampires. She exerts super-strength when facing her opponents and can move so fast that she appears as a blur of motion. Her senses are far beyond those of humans, allowing her to tell one's emotional state through their scent, hear things imperceptible to humans, and see clearly in total darkness. She is very athletic, possessing great stamina, reflexes, and agility beyond that of humans. Her healing factor grants her great resilience and allows her to heal rapidly from her wounds and makes her immune to Earthly illness and toxins.

She had the power to grow a giant pair of chiropteran wings to allow self-propelled flight. Her stare and even voice are hypnotic and seductive to humans, particularly males (she has been seen as having the ability to induce sexual arousal in men simply by being in their presence). She is shown to have the power of telepathy as she was able to hear the voices of demons inside Jackie Estacado's mind.

She is immortal. In addition to her supernatural abilities, Vampirella is a formidable hand-to-hand combatant and is shown to be skilled with modern-day firearms.

Spinoffs
Christopher Priest's world of Vampirella has been expanded in spinoffs. The first is Sacred Six (2020), which follows Lilith, Vampirella's mother, protecting a vampire city with a team consisting of Nyx, Chasity, Pantha, Victory (who takes on the name Draculina), and Katie (the real Draculina). Solo series were published for Nyx (2021), Pantha (2022), and Draculina (2022). A solo series for Victory was published in 2023.

Main protagonists

 * Vampirella
 * The heroine is a vampire, since she is the daughter of Lilith and needs blood to survive and has many of the typical vampiric powers, including superhuman physical abilities, shapeshifting into a bat, immortality, and a mesmeric stare. She is not prone to the race's traditional weaknesses, such as daylight, holy water, garlic, or crosses. She does not attack people to drink their blood, except occasionally when she herself is attacked or desires to kill.

 * Pendragon
 * A former sorcerer, now a sideshow magician. Vampirella calls him "Pendy dearest" and treats him as she would a kindly old uncle. While occasionally his knowledge of magic is useful to her, Pendragon is often a liability. In the Warren stories they often travel together, seeking out evil-doers, but Pendragon is generally depicted as getting lost, getting drunk, falling asleep, or otherwise fumbling at a critical moment, thus causing a crisis. Vampirella is deeply loyal to him, however; he is the only real family she has.

 * Conrad van Helsing
 * A blind, psychic vampire hunter. He was pursuing Dracula and initially tried to destroy Vampirella, believing her to be kin to that vampire lord.

 * Adam van Helsing
 * Conrad's son, and the last of a long line of vampire hunters, he followed his father's steps and became a paranormal researcher. He is portrayed as more open-minded than his father. He believed Vampirella was not evil, and eventually they fell in love. Vampirella has often helped Adam in his research.

Other characters

 * Tyler Westron
 * A physician who rescued Vampirella after a plane crash. Due to the injuries she sustained, he had to amputate her wings and was able to create a substitute blood serum that keeps Vampirella's thirst under control.

 * Dracula
 * Dracula appears as the most frequently recurring villain of the series.

 * The Blood-Red Queen of Hearts
 * Formerly known as Jezebel, or the Whore of Babylon, she was once a beautiful woman of ancient Babylon. She served as high priestess of the mad-god Chaos, until she offended her master by demanding that he make her his queen. As punishment, Chaos destroyed her body and trapped her soul within a Queen of Hearts playing card. Though she no longer has a physical form of her own, she has continued to exist for thousands of years as the card. Whenever a woman touches the card, she becomes the Queen.

 * Madek and Magdalene
 * Evil brother and sister of Vampirella, who planted false memories of the planet Drakulon in Vampirella's mind, in one version of her origin.

 * Draculina, Vampirella's blonde twin sister, who first appeared in Vampirella #2 (1969). She would make sporadic appearances in Harris publications, such as in Vampirella Quarterly Summer 2008. She began appearing in Dynamite stories in 2015.
 * Nuberus
 * The demon who tempted Vampirella with her true origin in order to gain access to Earth.

 * Sofia Murray
 * A young punk girl rescued by Vampirella who becomes her sidekick in the first Dynamite series.

 * Von Kreist
 * A former Prussian World War I officer, now a lich, who won his state of immortality in a card game with Satan, but at the price of steadily decaying alive. A cruel and sadistic mastermind, with a special victim preference in children.

 * Chaos
 * The ruler of Hell and the master of most of the villains that Vampirella faces.

 * Mistress Nyx
 * The daughter of a liaison between the mad-god Chaos and Lucrezia Borgia. A demonic persona, who is bent on destroying Vampirella.

 * Dixie Fattoni
 * One of two daughters of a Mafioso boss whom she was forced to kill by von Kreist; her twin sister Pixie was turned into a vampire by von Kreist's minions. Vampirella took the orphaned girl under her wing and trained her in combating vampires.

 * Pantha
 * Initially, alien shapeshifter from Vampirella's native planet who can morph into a black panther. Later stories rewrote her origin to that of an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh that was cursed by the Egyptian gods because of a murderous spree . She is cursed to live forever, with periods where she does not know who or what she is.

 * Lilith
 * Vampirella's mother and the first woman created by God. Her story is told in the alternate version of the events of Genesis, she was the first wife of Adam, and the mother of demons. She sent her daughter to Earth to atone for her mistakes. In Priest's run she no longer is the first woman but a woman from the Planet Drakulon.

 * Tristan
 * Vampirella's boyfriend on Drakulon in the Warren series who was killed by astronauts from Earth. In the 2010 Dynamite series, he is Vampirella's boyfriend and a werewolf.

Reception
Vampirella was ranked 35th in Comics Buyer's Guide's "100 Sexiest Women in Comics" list.

Circulation figures
Data is derived from annual Statements of Circulation. "Copies printed" refers to total print run. "Total paid circulation" refers to number of copies actually sold, which is the above number minus returns, lost/damaged copies, and free/promotional copies.

Vampi
In 2000 a comic book series entitled Vampi began circulation through Anarchy Studio. The series followed Vampi, an alternate futuristic version of Vampirella that seeks to find a cure for her vampirism. The main series ran for 25 issues. Several miniseries followed under the titles Vampi Vicious, Vampi Vicious Circle, Vampi Vicious Rampage, and Vampi vs. Xin. An omnibus edition collecting the first eighteen issues of the initial run was released in 2012 through Dynamite Entertainment.

Li'l Vampi
In January 2014 Dynamite Entertainment released Li'l Vampi, a one-shot comic book by writer Eric Trautmann and artist Agnes Garbowska. The comic followed a child version of Vampirella as she tries to uncover why monsters are destroying the town of Stoker, Maine.

Media adaptations
In 1992 Canadian actor and award-winning screenwriter, Peter Jobin, created the production company Europa Production Investment Corporation and purchased the movie rights to the comic book character Vampirella. Based on the source material, Mr. Jobin wrote the first draft screenplay and began the process of securing financing. Promotional artwork was commissioned from graphic artist William (Bill) Rankine. Promotional and investment packaging was presented at the May 1993 Cannes Film Festival at the American Pavilion. A full page promotional poster was also featured in the May 18, 1993 Hollywood Reporter Cannes '93 Daily Satellite Edition - Day 5. Financing was never fully completed for Vampirella: The Motion Picture and the film rights lapsed.

In 1996, a Vampirella film adaptation was produced by Concorde Pictures, starring Talisa Soto in the title role. In 2021, Dynamite Entertainment announced a new feature film was in development in addition to plans for television adaptations based on the Vampirella Universe.

title: Vampirella


text:
Disfranchising Act 1727

The Disfranchising Act was an Act of Parliament of the Parliament of Ireland debated in 1727 and enacted in 1728, one of a series of Penal Laws, and prohibited all Roman Catholics from voting in parliamentary elections. Its full title is "An Act for the further regulating the Election of Members of Parliament, and preventing the irregular Proceedings of Sheriffs and other Officers in electing and returning such Members" and its citation is 1 Geo. 2. c. 9 (I). It received royal assent on 6 May 1728.

In the 18th century, elections were held at irregular intervals and at the beginning of a new reign. The Act followed the death of George I on 11 June 1727 but did not take effect until after the election of 1727, coming into force in 1728.

The act was repealed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1793, allowing the franchise in Ireland to all men holding a property with a rental value of at least two pounds annually.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Disfranchising Act 1727


text:
Category:United States railroad holding companies

 * ' that own '.


text: File:Kamcgarrigle-dancer.jpg

title: File:Kamcgarrigle-dancer.jpg


text:
Talk:List of comic books

gibi, história em quadrinhos?
Could someone please explain to me what the italicized words in brackets after each name of a country mean (e g gibi, história em quadrinhos after Brazil)? Actually, all I wanted is de-orphan Nick Knatterton, but I have no idea where to put him. Here?  19:59, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

 * Translation of "comic book" in respective languages. Nick Knatterton (apparently it's a comic book series) should be added to Germany, Manfred Schmidt to List of comic creators.

remove comic strips?
List of comic books includes section "23.4 Classic newspaper strips" and section "24.2 Newspaper strips". Since there is List of comic strips I was wondering what others thought of removing the comic strips from List of comic books. --EarthFurst 07:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

ISSNs

 * Not a single ISSN is listed on this page. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to untag this page and tag the individual pages on publications that could have an ISSN listed but do not? --Keesiewonder talk 22:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur. Done. Dl2000 00:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

links/redirects
Can someone please the remove the redirect from the Dark Nebula listing in the Australia section. Dark Nebula was an independently published comic book in Australia but thanks to a well mis-placed redirect it links to the flipping List of characters in the Kirby series, which is a video game, not a comic.KhProd1 (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh Yeah Cartoons and Comics
When in the sam hill was there ever an Oh Yeah Cartoons comic book!?! I smell fraud...--JFP (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of comic books


text:
Raurimu Spiral

The Raurimu Spiral is a single-track railway spiral, starting with a horseshoe curve, overcoming a 139 m height difference, in the central North Island of New Zealand, on the North Island Main Trunk railway (NIMT) between Wellington and Auckland. It is a notable feat of civil engineering, having been called an "engineering masterpiece." The Institute of Professional Engineers of New Zealand has designated the spiral as a significant engineering heritage site.

Background
During the construction of the central section of the NIMT, a major obstacle arose: how to cross the steep slopes between the North Island Volcanic Plateau to the east and the valleys and gorges of the Whanganui River to the west?

South of Taumarunui, the terrain is steep but not unmanageable, with the exception of the stretch between Raurimu and National Park, where the land rises too steeply for a direct rail route. A direct line between these two points would rise 200 m in a distance of some 5 km, a gradient of 1 in 24. The area was thoroughly surveyed during the 1880s in an attempt to find a route with a lesser grade, but the only viable possibility seemed to require a 20 km detour and nine massive viaducts. Even then, the gradient would have been steeper than 1 in 50.

Construction
The problem was solved in 1898 by a surveyor in the employ of Robert Holmes, Public Works Department engineer. He proposed a line that looped back upon itself and then spiralled around with the aid of tunnels and bridges, rising at a gradient of 1 in 52. Though costly and labour-intensive, the scheme was still cheaper than the previous plan by Browne and Turner which required 9 viaducts down the Piopiotea River. The most remarkable feature is that there is no place to view the complete line. By all accounts, Holmes visualised the layout in his imagination.

The railway forms an ascending spiral southwards, with two relatively short tunnels, a circle and three hairpin bends. From the north, trains pass Raurimu before going round a 200° bend to the left in a horseshoe curve, climbing above the track on which they have just travelled. Two sharp bends to the right follow, after which the line passes through two short tunnels, the Lower Spiral Tunnel (384 m) and the Upper Spiral Tunnel (96 m). Trains then complete a full circle, crossing over the Lower Spiral Tunnel through which they have just passed which is 23 m below, before continuing towards Wellington. 2 km further on the line has two more sharp bends, to the right and then to the left.

After the second of these bends a train has risen 132 m and travelled 6.8 km from Raurimu– the straight-line distance is 2 km. Some of the sharp curves are only 7½ chains (150 m) radius.

Although spirals are relatively common in the Alps, particularly in Switzerland, they generally involve extensive tunnelling inside mountainsides. A masterly feature of Holmes' layout is the way in which it uses natural land contours so that no viaducts are needed, and only two short tunnels.

Folklore
Legend has it that a locomotive engineer once engaged the emergency brakes of his train upon mistaking the light of his own Guard's Van on a nearby part of the spiral for the rear of a different train directly ahead of him.

title: Raurimu Spiral


text:
THM

THM, Thm, thm or ThM may refer to:

 * Turbo-Hydramatic, GM vehicle transmission
 * Ton of heavy metal in a nuclear power plant
 * Ton of hot metal in the steel industry
 * Trihalomethanes in chemistry
 * Therm, a unit of heat energy
 * Technische Hochschule Mittelhessen—University of Applied Sciences
 * Master of Theology postnominal, ThM

title: THM


text:
Talk:Sequential art

Untitled
Changed to a redirect as discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

Reason to open this article again
The late Will Eisner, author of the term, which is used in Wikipedia anyway, pointed out that Comics are not Sequential art but the printed form of it that includes text boxes, and dialog balloons.

Explaining Sequential Art in the Comics article is as senseless and confusing as explaining Literature in the Poetry article.

--20-dude (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

To do list

 * Verify and eliminate or expand and source the affirmations made by previous editors.
 * Elaborate on the story of the term, and perhaps include the root words of "sequential" and "art".
 * Open a section to elaborate on the different types of sequential art, including comics.

Anything else?

--20-dude (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

the trick
Ok, there's the trick: the "Sequential art" article has to summarize all the work done in various mediums and the "comics" article, in contrats, only has to mention that it's an evolution that came and belong to the sequential art.

Sequential sculpture
Hi, regarding sequential sculpture, Bryan Talbot mentions Craig Knowles (artist)' Taking Flight (Alice in Sunderland, p. 105). . There are other sequential sculptures, such as Zenos Frudakis' Freedom (2001, GlaxoSmithKline World Headquarters, Philadelphia)  or Dion Wright's Evolution of Birds (Arizona/Sonora Desert Museum in Tucson). Should that be mentioned here? And does anybody know of more instances? --Jonas kork (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Images
I thought about the images used for the article. Considering that the criterion is that the art should consist of a cohesive sequence, it isn't particularly illustrative that all illustrations are of single image, and that Will Eisner drawing seems to be cover art, thus not really sequential to begin with. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sequential art


text:
Al Herman

Homer Gerald "Al" Herman (March 15, 1926 – June 18, 1960) was an American racecar driver.

Biography
Born in Topton, Pennsylvania, Herman died in West Haven, Connecticut as a result of injuries sustained in a midget car crash at the West Haven Speedway. Herman was involved in a multi-car crash on the first lap of the feature race and his car rolled. He drove in the American Automobile Association (AAA) and United States Automobile Club (USAC) Championship Car series, racing in the 1955-1957 and 1959–1960 seasons with 11 starts, including the Indianapolis 500 races in each of those years. He finished in the top ten 3 times, with his best finish in 7th position, in the 1955 Indianapolis 500, earning him Rookie of the Year.

Herman married June C. Hereth. He lived in Kuhnsville, Pennsylvania. He was buried in Ziegels Union Cemetery in Breinigsville, Pennsylvania.

World Championship career summary
The Indianapolis 500 was part of the FIA World Championship from 1950 through 1960. Drivers competing at Indy during those years were credited with World Championship points and participation. Al Herman participated in 5 World Championship races. He started on the pole 0 times, won 0 races, set 0 fastest laps, and finished on the podium 0 times. He accumulated a total of 0 championship points.

title: Al Herman


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikidemia/to-do list

Here's a brief list of tasks that should probably be done to get things rolling. Please add, remove, rearrange, and comment! See also the list of ongoing/future studies.

 * 1) Collect data
 * 2) * characterize completed research on wikipedia.
 * 3) * run surveys
 * 4) * list available stats queries; run them regularly (see Statistics Department)
 * 5) Identify new sources of data
 * 6) * solicit intervention ideas that may be beneficial and that can be rigorously tested.
 * 7) * discuss the kinds of research that can be done without any attention from developers and the kinds that can't.
 * 8) Identify uses of data
 * 9) * define medium-term (3-5 year) and long-term challenges WP faces that could be addressed more effectively with better information.
 * 10) * create or link to a discussion of research methodologies. (i envision the research in this project to use the scientific method, but this should be discussed.)
 * 11) * one extremely valuable tool for research is the controlled experiment. write or link to pages on experimental methods; flesh out and give examples of controlled experiments that could be run on wikipedia.
 * 12) * start adding specific research projects or studies within this WikiProject; create a template for new projects (methods, key question/hypothesis, data needed, data analysis plans, implications of results for academic theories/ for wikipedia design/redesign). essentially, these pages (which ought to reside in the project space rather than the encyclopedia space) will look like research proposals.
 * 13) * describe how research on wikipedia fits in with existing research topics in established academic fields.
 * 14) Expand this project
 * 15) * seek out other potential contributors to the project.
 * 16) * standardize ways of getting feedback from the broader community about research proposals.
 * 17) Move the project to Research oder Wikimedia Research Team where it belongs -- Nichtich 07:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, Wikimedia Research Network needs to be differentiated from this group. See project talk page. ∴ here…♠ 23:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Connect with new research communities
 * 2) * Target OLPC schools who are using Wikipedia content in the classroom and interested in related studies (sometimes running very local studies of their own)
 * 3) * Target classes already using Wikipedia in high school and college to teach critical thinking, collaborative process, and information design
 * I agree, Wikimedia Research Network needs to be differentiated from this group. See project talk page. ∴ here…♠ 23:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Connect with new research communities
 * 2) * Target OLPC schools who are using Wikipedia content in the classroom and interested in related studies (sometimes running very local studies of their own)
 * 3) * Target classes already using Wikipedia in high school and college to teach critical thinking, collaborative process, and information design


text:
Artists and repertoire

Artists and repertoire (or A&R for short) is the division of a record label or music publishing company that is responsible for scouting and overseeing the artistic development of recording artists and songwriters. It also acts as a liaison between artists and the record label or publishing company. Every activity involving artists to the point of album release is generally considered under the purview and responsibility of A&R.

Finding talent
The A&R division of a record label is responsible for finding new recording artists and bringing those artists to the record company. A&R staff may go to hear emerging bands play at nightclubs and festivals to scout for talent. Personnel in the A&R division are expected to understand the current tastes of the market and to be able to find artists who will be commercially successful. For this reason, A&R people are often young and many are musicians, music journalists or record producers.

An A&R executive is authorized to offer a record contract, often in the form of a "deal memo" – a short, informal document that establishes a business relationship between the recording artist and the record company. The actual contract negotiations will typically be carried out by rival entertainment lawyers hired by the musician's manager and the record company.

A&R executives rely mostly on the word of mouth of trusted associates, critics and business contacts, rather than on unsolicited demo tapes. They also tend to favor the bands that play in the same city as the record label's offices.

Overseeing the recording process
The A&R division of a record label oversees the music style and recording process. This includes helping the artist to find the right record producer, scheduling time in a recording studio and advising the artist on all aspects of making a high-quality recording. They work with the artist to choose the best songs (i.e., repertoire) to record. For artists who do not write their own music, the A&R person will assist in finding songs, songwriters and arrangers. A&R staff will help find session musicians for the recording. A&R executives maintain contact with their counterparts at music publishing companies to get new songs and material from songwriters and producers.

As the record nears completion, the A&R department works closely with the artist to determine whether the record is acceptable to the record company. This process may include suggesting that new songs need to be written, that existing songs need a new arrangement, or that some album tracks need to be re-recorded. A key issue is whether the album has a single – a particular track which can be used to market the record.

Assisting with marketing and promotion
Once the record is completed, the A&R department consults with marketing, promotion, the artist and their management to choose one or more singles to help promote the record.

History and influence
The tastes of particular A&R executives have influenced the course of music history. A&R man John Hammond discovered Billie Holiday, Bob Dylan, Aretha Franklin and Bruce Springsteen. Hammond's colleagues were initially skeptical of these artists because none of them appeared to be creating "commercial" music. Hammond's instincts proved to be correct, and these artists went on to sell hundreds of millions of records. Gary Gersh signed the band Nirvana to David Geffen's DGC Records at a time when alternative rock music was not considered commercial. Gersh was able to convince his co-workers to push the record in spite of their misgivings. In cases like these, A&R people have radically changed the direction of popular musical tastes and introduced large numbers of people to new sounds.

This kind of prescience is the exception rather than the rule. Historically, A&R executives have tended to sign new artists who fit into recent trends and who resemble acts that are currently successful. For example, Columbia Records' A&R man in the 1950s, Mitch Miller, favored traditional pop singers like Guy Mitchell and Patti Page, and rejected early rock-'n'-rollers Elvis Presley and Buddy Holly.

This "trend following" mindset has generated several waves of narrowly defined genres, leading to a perception of triteness, including teen pop (1998–2001), alternative rock (1993–1996), glam metal (1986–1991) and disco (1976–1978). Trend following can be counter-productive, since it has often led to over-promotion followed by backlash (as happened to the disco genre for example). Towards the end of the life of each wave or trend, record companies have found themselves faced with enormous losses as consumers' tastes changed. For example, at the end of the disco boom in 1978, millions of records were returned by record retailers, causing a deep recession in the music business that lasted until 1982, when Michael Jackson's Thriller finally brought the public back into record stores in large numbers.

The general move towards more conservative and business-minded signings from the 1980s onwards is seen to be symptomatic of an industry where the most powerful figures are no longer music fans or people with musical backgrounds, but are business executives, a group largely composed of individuals with uniform backgrounds. Traditionally A&R executives were composers, arrangers and producers – Atlantic Records's heads Jerry Wexler and Ahmet Ertegun were producers and composers respectively – but an A&R with musical ability and knowledge has become a rarity, with Ron Fair and Martin Kierszenbaum being notable recent exceptions. The composer and arranger Richard Niles has said,

"What you've got now is huge multinational companies where most of their A&R staff are businessmen. They're people who look at music from the standpoint of marketing, not from the standpoint of music and talent. They will say, 'Go out and get me anything that's popular now.'"

Hip hop group Wu-Tang Clan referenced this stereotype of the business-minded A&R executive in their single "Protect Ya Neck", metaphorically likening them to "mountain climbers".

Regional variations
According to Rhythm King Records and Lizard King Records founder Martin Heath, the A&R community in the UK is more integrated than it is in the US, being very London-centric and encompassing a relatively small number of people. "If scouts are chasing a band, you'll see the same thirty people in one room. You get a herd mentality in the UK, but also some very diverse signings as well," he said in an interview with HitQuarters. Heath believes that in the US it is more typical for A&R to wait until a band is established – having attracted other offers or achieved a level of sales – before taking action, a technique which often works out as being more expensive.

2000s changes
New forms of digital distribution have changed the relationship between consumers and the music they choose. Gerd Leonhard and others argue that the wide selection of music on digital services has allowed music consumers to bypass the traditional role of A&R. In the wake of declining record sales, many A&R staffers have been terminated.

title: Artists and repertoire


text:
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Queenstown

Queenstown
This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.
 * Oppose. Image quality way below FP standards. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:05, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The scan quality really lets it down, but even with a better scan I think it would be a good but by no means great image. Worldtraveller 13:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose, same as Worldtraveller -- Chris 73 Talk 00:04, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Enochlau 01:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Solipsist 08:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 02:36, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q ∞ 22:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * +0/-7. Not retained as a featured picture. ed g2s  •  talk  01:59, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Schlern

Schlern
This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.

 * Oppose. Image quality is way below FP standards. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:04, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose, looks overexposed, too light. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:41, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sun comming from the front puts the mountain in the shadow and makes the sky too bright -- Chris 73 Talk 00:05, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Same reasons as above. -Lommer 20:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral, but I suspect it was originally liked on the basis of the first version Stan 22:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Enochlau 01:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * oppose -- Solipsist 08:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q ∞ 22:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --Fir0002 04:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not retained as a featured picture. +0/-8. ed g2s  •  talk  01:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Peppermint

Peppermint and Corsican mint plant
This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.
 * Support. Clear and straightforward, illustrative image. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:04, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   14:01, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:06, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support Lorax 01:04, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 04:23, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. -Lommer 20:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Lacks clarity and sharpness, perhaps Photoshop touch-up in store? Enochlau 01:57, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Its a fine illustration of the difference between Peppermint and Corsican mint, but the peppermint article doesn't have much to say and the only mention of Corsican mint is at mint (so might as well add the picture there). Apart from that, the photo is not so sharp and not especially interesting. -- Solipsist 08:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Suffers from compression. Not very interesting. ed g2s  •  talk  22:22, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Janderk 16:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not particularly interesting. - Jpo 18:56, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support --ScottyBoy900Q ∞ 22:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with Ed g2s --Fir0002 04:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not retained as a featured picture. +8/-5. ed g2s  •  talk  02:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Halong Bay

Halong Bay
This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.
 * Oppose. Way too small, a request by Raul asking for a larger version has not been replied to in months. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:03, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too much distraction from boat in foreground. lacks color. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:39, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unpleasant foreground, and the lighting is very flat. I'm sure there are much better pictures of this popular destination. Worldtraveller 12:49, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The name "Vacation Photo 022503.jpg" describes the quality level very well. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:09, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Enochlau 02:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. -- Solipsist 07:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 02:37, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q ∞ 22:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. agree with most that is written above. --Fir0002 04:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not promoted. +0/-9. ed g2s  •  talk  01:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Webcomic

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

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

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

A section on the different developmental path that French "webcomics" took could be added here. Paraphrasing http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bande_dessin%C3%A9e_en_ligne: Comics in the French language appeared online very hesitantly: 1997 Bande dessinée interactive? first (shortlived?) appearance at Angoulême International Comics Festival; existing print-comic publishers show limited strips on their web-portals (Fluide Glacial); group of illustrators launch BDAmateur 1998; 2001 "Lapin by Phiip first french online comic strip"? ... Anglosaxon and Asian regions clearly ahead; claims on line comics in Korea represent a quarter of the cartoon market! 2005 revitalisation of francophone comics: Blog BD (mixed set of graphic novel fragments, illustrations, sketches, popular as, but different from US-webcomics); contrary to rest of world French comics online return to the traditional printed paper style; I would be interested if anyone could expand this section for several other languages and cultures, for example where are Japanese and Korean webcomics mentioned (apart from eigoMANGA)? 84user (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Censorship
Well I added this:

France:

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

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

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

Authority for "first online comic"
T.H.E. Fox has the assertion of being the "first known online comic" based on a statement by T Campbell of Penny and Aggie. Is this person's statement something we can consider a reliable source? GreenReaper (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, by the looks of things all that means is that it's the earliest he personally knows, and it's probably the earliest he knows because he looked it up on Wikipedia and it's the earliest given in this article. Blackbirdz (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Do you think there is anyone who can make such a statement, then? I mean, he wrote A History Of Webcomics, so I'm not sure who else to look to (I've emailed him asking for clarification on where he got the information). Note that the article was just created, although it's true that a previous version existed. GreenReaper (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, this isn't the type of thing anyone can know for sure, and the source says as much. Blackbirdz (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. We can't say for sure that it is the earliest online comic. But I dropped him an email, and he pointed out this quite reasonable point:

At this writing, I can't find anything earlier than, or contemporary with, *T.H.E. Fox*.

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

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

I find this way too amusing and ironic not to point out. Read the last part of Scott Kurtz's post here. (I can't copy it all here) He says "I think I would just let everyone tell their own story, even if they overlap and contradict each other. The contradictions would at least be compelling." and then goes on to say "Maybe it's something that should be more open-source and wiki-like than something that reads like a term paper." Sense the relevancy of all this? :) RP9 (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And here's another view on the reliability of this source. Jon Rosenberg writes: "some fairly major chronological errors ... absolutely retarded ... my faith in his research abilities is pretty slim ... he is not concerned about accuracy ... He is not concerned when he steals ideas from people and posts them without credit."  Blackbirdz (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm definitely not saying that Fiore is unworthy of inclusion in Wiki or even the webcomics article (in case any thinks I am) - but I do feel that a better example of an animated webcomic, rather than a flash-animated political cartoon, could be provided in the article. Perhaps other examples can be found and added, at least? Visual Error (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a suggestion for another, better example of a webcomic artist that incorporates "animations or even interactive elements" in their work, you should name them and the supporting reliable sources. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * K, Starblueheather, I'll see what I can find and post suggestions here. Visual Error (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One suggestion:
 * Argon Zark! - referred to on its wiki article as one of the first comics to incorporate interactivity and animation. Lots of references on that page, but online ones are as follows:
 * Parker, Charley (2004). Interview
 * The Internet Archive: zark.com - Nov, 1996 - ..
 * '"Webcomics" Lambiek.net Comiclopedia
 * '"Comic Creator: Charley Parker" Lambiek.net Comiclopedia

 * Another suggestion:
 * The Boy with Nails for Eyes - no wiki article for this one, though it has positive cites from external sources - not sure which, if any, count as reputable (this was one of the comics mentioned in an earlier version - couldn't find cites for the other):
 * Comic Book Resources
 * Comixtalk
 * There's also a postive article on Examiner.com, but when I tried to save with an inline link, the update was blocked as the domain appears on the wiki blacklist. I gather from this on the blacklist talk page that Examiner may well be removed from the list, so I'll try to re-add it later (though I may well forget)
 * Thoughts? Would either of these be suitable? I think it's best to get consensus on this before posting to the main article Visual Error (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Argon Zark has good refs like Scott McCloud's Reinventing Comics, so that looks like it could be a good example to include along with Mark Fiore's comics. The other does not look to have very good references at all so wouldn't belong here. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Single Asian Female
Found a source about Single Asian Female: WhisperToMe (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "New Comic Strip Seeks Single Asian Female Perspective." Asianweek. November 10, 2006.

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

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

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

 * That's great and all, but there are no reliable sources that have been provided to verify any of this. If reliable sources are that hard to find, it's likely not notable enough to include as an example of early webcomics, as it isn't an iconic example of one.  Simply existing early isn't enough.  Being an early webcomic isn't the same as being a notable early webcomic. - SudoGhost 07:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm clearly not writing that it is notable for its simple existence, but rather providing its notability lies in both its timeline and its innovative use of the format for furthering the medium through experimental use of web technologies, animation and user interaction as written above.

 * Furthermore, this does belong on this page as it was the first interactive and first animated webcomic. Go ahead and try and find somebody else claiming to be the first interactive comic or partially animated comic, because you're not going to find them. At the time, there were less than 50 online comics and of those, nobody else will make this claim that they were the first to do any of the stuff the WackyCrackHeads did, because it simply didn't happen. It's a simple matter of historical accuracy.
 * A quick Google search of "first interactive webcomic" comes up with a few claims, actually. There is no "burden of disproof" on Wikipedia, information must be supported by reliable sources.  Inserting your own webcomic into a Wikipedia article is a conflict of interest, especially if there are no reliable sources to support your claims.  Without reliable sources, your claim cannot be inserted.  Please take a look at WP:V.  Thank you. - SudoGhost 14:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Okay, well that's probably the problem. A quick google search does not a fact make. Additionally, the 33 results from google for "first interactive webcomic" refer to The Black Tower; published in 2008 and Sarab.co (in Lebanon) in 2011. Please cite your claims in talk.
 * That's exactly the point. Their claims have exactly the same amount of validation yours does, zero.  That's why reliable sources are required, to verify it. - SudoGhost 14:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 * And it's exactly *my point* that a quick google search will turn up nothing. But an extended, intentionally directed google search will enlighten completely.

 * Whois record for interverse.com | whois.domaintools.com
 * Created on Jan. 24, 1995 and Expires on Jan. 25, 2014

 * Whois record for dross.com | whois.domaintools.com
 * Created on Oct. 20, 1995 and Expires on Oct. 19, 2012.

 * Whois record for wackycrackheads.com | whois.domaintools.com
 * Created on Mar. 26, 1996 and Expires on Mar. 27, 2013

 * Now look at http://www.solscape.com/humor/cartoons.html and scroll down to the bottom where it says The Wacky Crack-Heads! you'll see the link points to Interverse. Indeed, the comics were on interverse before even dross or wackycrackheads.

 * Now look at http://www.well.com/~ivanski/viewmovie/viewmovie_sites.html and see that in both April and May of 1995, The WackyCrackHeads included webcomics using QT with animation.

 * I'd really like to see your search results showing that there were other claims to "first interactive webcomics" or webcomics with animation before April or even within a decade of 1995. Unless your point was just that you are directly lying and fabricating info and thus accusing me of same. Considering the artwork with dates drawn into them, internet archives, links from similarly ancient web artifacts and those lousy disreputable DNS records, I'd like to suggest you re-examine your motivation for removing the edits from the article.
 * --HansOg (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That only verifies that a website existed, and something existed there. Not what it was, what it was the "first" of, or that it was notable.  That's why reliable sources are needed. - SudoGhost 15:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Discussed above why being the first animated/interactive webcomic is notable. The link from the WELL shows it was on the page in April of 1995. And here's a Wayback Machine view of the one of the same from a couple years later:

 * http://web.archive.org/web/19971120184544/http://www.dross.com/wackycrackheads/PG/psychogoose.html

 * The dark spot in the middle is where the quicktime is embedded in the source: <embed src="http://web.archive.org/web/19971120184544/http://www.dross.com/wackycrackheads/PG/media/goose.mov" hspace=0 vspace=0 autoplay=false controller=false width=156 height=131 VOL=3>

 * This really confirms the notability even more, noting that someone thinks the claim is so noteworthy that they can't believe it's true and is willing to reject all the data to deny it's inclusion on a wiki page. However, I can't help but wonder if this isn't just another example of moralistically motivated, socio-economic prejudice based on the title being "The WackyCrackHeads"? No worries though, I'm used to it...

 * SINCE 1995 BABY!!!

 * --HansOg (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Webcomic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090606062854/http://www.publishersweekly.com:80/article/CA6327720.html to http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6327720.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070127001532/http://www.publishersweekly.com:80/article/CA6393781.html to http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6393781.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Webcomic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130308091741/http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/10/02/homestuck-interview-andrew-hussie-bryan-lee-omalley-ms-paint-adventures/ to http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/10/02/homestuck-interview-andrew-hussie-bryan-lee-omalley-ms-paint-adventures/

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Webcomic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100124060541/http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2000&month=November&read=1108 to http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2000&month=November&read=1108
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100305085613/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=134710&highlight=zuda to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=134710&highlight=zuda

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

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

Web Comic vs Webcomic
I've seen "web comic" used more in writing and usage than "webcomic" and it also seems correct to write them as two separate words like "graphic novel" than to combine them into one. I wanted to know what the majority of people on here believe before making any important moves. Should this page remain "webcomic" or should it be renamed to "web comic"? AquilaXIII (talk) 12:42, April 18, 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel fairly strongly about the use of 'webcomic' over web comic', as the former appears much more in reliable sources. A Google News search of "webcomic" gives five times more results than "web comic", and there are more book results for 'webcomic' as well. Going through some of the most commonly used sources for webcomics (listed here), you have sources like Comics Alliance, Comic Book Resources, Bleeding Cool, Newsarama, etc, etc, not to mention The Webcomics Examiner. Scott McCloud used "web comic" at least once in his 2000-book Reinventing Comics (though I had difficulty finding the term in there), but Ted Rall used "webcomic" throughout his 2006-book Attitude 3. Now, there are of course a lot more source to dig through. I think books about comics may be interesting as well when asking about this, but I feel like "webcomic" is in much more common usage. ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The only reason I ask is because whenever the word "web" is used with a term as an adjective, it is always written as two separate words instead of a compound word. One good example is the term "web novel" which is written as two separate words instead of one. The same goes for the term "web fiction" which is not written as "webfiction". Digital Asian comics also do this when "web" is used as an adjective to refer to their own digital comics: web manga for digital manga in Japan and web manhua for digital manhua in China. "Webcomic" seems to be the only term that is spelled as a compound word unless there is an example of another term that does the same. Even then, there are still people who spell it as two separate words. It's for this reason that I lean towards renaming this page to "web comic" rather than "webcomic". AquilaXIII (talk) 08:49, May 31, 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to suggest for Wikipedia to use the term "Web comic" rather than "Webcomic", I suppose it would be best to do so on the webcomic WikiProject or possibly even the comics WikiProject, as that would be a fairly significant change. You can write all of the examples you've given off as "other stuff existing", though. English can be oddly inconsistent with its terms, but I don't believe that is an issue. "Web comic" still redirects here, after all. I think we should follow WP:COMMONNAME and follow the majority of sources; do you have a few significant sources that consistently use "web comic" rather than "webcomic"? ~ Mable ( chat ) 10:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We should definitely stay with "webcomic" as one word, as that is by far the most common spelling of the term. Note that there are in fact many other compound words that also start with "web". For example, webcam, website, webcast, webmaster, and webmail. Clothanalyst (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

First webcomic
Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

Wiki Education assignment: Digital Media and Information in Society
— Assignment last updated by Stevesuny (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Webcomic


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tindersticks (first album)

from VfD:

Tindersticks (first album)
This article has no meaningful content and I don't see anything to suggest that this album is notable. Perhaps anything worthy of note could be mentioned in the main Tindersticks article. Wikipedia is not CDDB. David Johnson 09:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

KEEP There has been additional information added about the album now - the content is of certain importance and does not reflect only CDDB data - if so then all album infos should be deleted on wikipedia in gerneral ?!? (e.g. see "nick cave" - there all albums have a single entry !) --ATi:) 19:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)--ATi:) 11:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)atibens--ATi:) 11:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)atibens
 * Comment: You mean the copyrighted text I'm about to remove? Do not add copyrighted text to Wikipedia. David Johnson 11:25, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Re: Comment: sorry for that! this was my first posting here - sorry ... i´m going to explore wikipedia a bit more in the future - a real nice project :) --ATi:) 12:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Merge with Tindersticks main article and Delete Wyss 20:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are lots of album articles that have very little content and some that have far too much. Why pick on this one? It should be cleaned up though.Dr Zen 00:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: I cleaned it up some. I kept most of the information that was already there. DCEdwards1966 00:57, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. DCEdwards has done a good job on this album. It was a critically well-received album when released in 1993 being named as Melody Maker "Album of the Year". Capitalistroadster 10:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep this version. —[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * KeepSjc 15:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:15, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. We're not a music database -- albums need to be notable to be on here. --Improv 22:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Even if that were true, you must be aware that there are many albums on here that are not very well known?Dr Zen 00:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion