Talk:List of webcomics in print

Issues with references; should this be a category?

There are numerous red-linked webcomics on this list. I haven't checked each of the blue links, but presumably there is a source cited in each about the print history of the comic. As this list currently stands, the red-links are not supported by cited sources. I am about to remove the red links. I also wonder whether this whole list should be replaced with a category. Any thoughts? -- Dragonfiend 06:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition: In Print

What is meant by the term in print? Does it mean that new comics are still being produced, or that the comics are being transposed from the web to a printed-paper format? --JB Adder | Talk 07:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It means that they are still being produced. Getting published would probably be the proper term for being transposed from web-to-paper.

Foggi 01:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Foggi

I realize that this is an old discussion, but this list is linked by the main Webcomics article as a list of comics in physical print form. Is that not the case? A list of webcomics that were still actively producing strips is almost the same as the list of webcomics worth noting on Wikipedia in the first place; it would be easier to make a list of no-longer-updating comics. Also, "being published" is an inferior term for being in physical print, because legally, publication on the web is still publication, for purposes of copyright and such. In the US, a cartoonist can file a registered copyright for work he has "published" even if it has only appeared online. --Ig8887 (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The list is of webcomics that have been printed in books, magazines, and/or newspapers. Looking at this now, I'm not sure why we have both this list and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Webcomics_in_print. --Dragonfiend (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Converting List to Chart

It looks like at some point, someone was making the bottom list into the chart and then just gave up, and it's been sitting that way for a while. I'm going to work some more on it, but if I can't easily find what the categories of print are for a listed comic, I'm going to delete it and someone who knows (or can find) the proper info is free to add it back. I just did the "I" section and deleted Irregular Webcomic because I can't find any indication that it was ever printed as a book, in a newspaper, or in a magazine. Philabustr (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Article completely redone - inclusion criteria!

I completely redid this article, with a bit of help from User:PresN. Right now, I believe the list follows some decent inclusion criteria:

• For the Published webcomics section, the publisher and either the webcomic or its creator(s) should be notable. There should also always be a reliable, secondary sources reporting on at least one of the releases. I suppose the "issues" column is original research, but I'm not sure how to deal with it either. Luckily, because all of these webcomics are published by larger publishing houses, so verifying the issue number isn't difficult.
• For the Webcomics syndicated in newspapers and magazines section, either the webcomic or its creator(s) should be notable. Also, either the publisher or at least one of the publications should be notable. With this also, a reliable secondary source must be present.

I believe that if we keep to this system, this list will remain high-quality. I'm even thinking about trying to make it a Featured List at some point, but I don't believe I'd be able to do that... ~Mable (chat) 12:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: On the contrary, I think it's quite doable. FL status is much easier than people seem to think it is; the hardest part by far is finding the sources, which you've clearly excelled at. The biggest issue would honestly be explaining why the Plan 9 works aren't on the table (I know why just clearing it up for non-involved readers). After that, a pass-through for the short prose sections and most of the work would be done, after that, it's just a few tedious "making sure the citations are consistent" stuff to sort out. --PresN 02:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, PresN! Maybe I will try to follow up on this, I'll see. For the record, I didn't include Plan Nine's webcomic publications on the table for a few reasons. The main reason is that I can't find any sources for them. A few are mentioned in the sources I used, but it would be impossible to list them all. This connects to the fact that Plan Nine is by definition a small publisher, who is only notable because of its (early) foray into webcomic publication. Following the sources, Plan Nine's publications simply don't have any notability. I am not sure how I would communicate this within the article any more than I have already done, though.

One other thing that keeps me from nominating this as an FL is that I haven't been able to find a single source that discusses self-publication of webcomics directly. I currently only have one line about Kickstarter, and that's just not enough. I may need to just look around for more sources, though. ~Mable (chat) 10:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• @HarrisonSteam: You seem to have a problem with the inclusion criteria I made (see recent edit history of the article). The thing is that I am trying to keep the scope of the list narrow and keep the quality up. There are a lot of self-published webcomics, and figuring out which to list would be a pain. I have considered creating a separate section for self-published webcomics, actually. I'm not sure how to do that with reasonable inclusion criteria, though. I figured doing this with prose could work, using sources talking about self-published webcomics in the more general sense, but those don't really exist. It would be really cool if there were a source about how people use Kickstarter and Lulu, for example, to self-publish their webcomics, but such sources sadly don't exist. Creating a list completely based on singular sources feels counter to the whole idea of Wikipedia and it seems WP:SYNTH to some degree... What are your thoughts on this? Either way, I would want to keep published and self-published split. ~Mable (chat) 18:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

(btw, I did check for sources for a potential article on Erma, but I sadly wasn't able to find much besides the Bloody Disgusting article, so I don't think it meets WP:GNG after all.) ~Mable (chat) 18:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Same here. Erma has real potential. Do hope SOMEONE can write an article for its inclusion.HarrisonSteam (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't help with sources but I've diverted some incoming links from dab page Erma. Certes (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

PVP

Should PvP get a mention or at least a note in the Syndicated section that it got picked up by one paper once a week for a couple months? It's not syndication by any means, and I don't think it should make the table, but there are so few webcomics that make it to papers that one relatively famous "free" offer that got sort of run seems like it should be noted somehow... --PresN 02:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems like Comics Bulletin noted that PvP was in The Kansas City Star for a three month trial period. I guess that is enough? It's rather weak, seeing as it probably didn't stick. ~Mable (chat) 10:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that because it was purely a trial, and not proper syndication, it shouldn't be listed. ~Mable (chat) 13:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Independent webcomics and commercial webcomics

Should there be a distinction between webcomics that started out as online independent works before getting a publishing deal or comics that were commercially published online? I'm asking this because nowadays a lot of manga is being published through web apps or web magazines created by major publishing companies in Japan. For example, Spy × Family is listed as an example of a webcomic in print, but it has always been serialized in Shōnen Jump+, so it always would have had a publishing deal regardless. lullabying (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The manga situation has been a problem for a while. Up to this point, I've pretty much been ignoring the publisher's web apps, seeing them as similar to stuff like Comixology and such, but they're not quite like that either. We could require a reliable source specifically describing a work as a "webcomic" before inclusion, tho... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

In addition to web apps and web magazines, there are a lot of websites owned by major publishers where webtoons and manga are being published. Should we distinguish between commercially published webcomics VS independent syndications that got picked up for a publishing deal? lullabying (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The thing with a platform like Naver Webtoon is that its content ranges from free hosting to sponsored stuff to bought IPs; there's no rule about how "independent" anything is on there, but a lot of webcomics hosted on Webtoons.com are indeed very independent. "Webcomics" have historically implied a level of independence, and the word is still typically applied in that way, perhaps in contrast with digital comics. But there's no sources that go into the distinction between the two at all, so I really think the best we can do is just see if sources describe something as a "webcomic" and include it here when they do...