Talk:Sprite comic

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Webcomics.

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

UO comics

UO sprite comics have been around since 1997, possibly predating Neglected Mario Characters. UO comics were prevalent during the height of UO's popularity, such as Bones' UO comics and Imanewbie. Their popularity died out around the time of Renaissance and Third Dawn.

While I think that sprite comics might have been the natural evolution of screenshot comics, I don't think I would consider any of them to be "the first sprite comic."

Offline sprite comics

There may be examples of sprite comics in video game magazines, predating online sprite comics.

History of sprite comics

A history section could describe the evolution of sprite comics and their influence on hand drawn comics and flash animations, as well as advancements in use of image editing software. This would be a good way to reference different titles without advertising them.

Plug your website article

This article has become a "plug your website" article. I hate sprite comic artists, I was part of that community for three years.

If you hate sprite comic artists, why do you even discuss here? You are just trying to instigate a fight. Why don't you let the real spriters deal with the sprites section. "Plug your website" is not good for wiki, but maybe an archive leading to a website list would be good. Even bad sprite comics will help give browsers an example of a bad comic. Maybe you could create a page of "Plug your site" with the warning that content may be very sub-par as anyone can submit to this page. ~Regulus.

Because plugging unknown sprite comics into the middle of the article is just shameless. But there is no such word as shameless in your community. Also, I want to keep the article accurate. The way this was written was making it sound as if these random comics STARTED sprite comics.

wow someones forgetting the whole point of wikipedia

"making it sound as if these random comics STARTED sprite comics." if somethings inaccurate then change it but don't whine like a child when you don't like something.

I think there are some webcomics that deserve to be in the links, unique comics like Kid Radd, and comics that began a certain genre of webcomics. Like Pokemon-X started the whole Pokemon sprite comic genre and 8-bit theater started the Final Fantasy Sprite comic genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.102.184 (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming comic

im making a comic called sonicisms (guess who that stars) ill give you a link once ive got a website...

Is it notable in any way? If we allow a link for every sprite comic, then the page would be too cluttered. Sonic Mew | talk to me 15:50, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

--I seriously doubt that. Most of the page is just advertising and links to insignifigant comics. We should link only to the most vital to the history of sprite comics, such as NC and BnG, and those of relatively high quality, such as TPC, SAQ, KR, AMD, etc., as well as large lists such as the VFBLOSC. -Sprited Spheniscidae

--I agree. -Cheesy, cheesycomics.20m.com

First?

It says which was the first but when was the first? And how do we know it was the first? RJFJR 02:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neglected Characters started on September 6, 1997, and there are no sprite comics that have a legitimate claim to outdate it. Eoseth 22:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comic itself actually started in 1998. Fjord3 16:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Is a link to Sprites INC appropriate for the article? I have doubts since it relates to sprite ripping and not sprite comics themselves. I'm going to remove it, but if anyone thinks it should be added back, please state your reasoning here. Fjord3 23:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Maybe add some pix? Neopetslovette 02:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BnG Strip.gif

Image:BnG Strip.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Unless some sort of non-trivial coverage can be found for these comics, we are essentially just acting as a cheap version of their home pages. They may be notable as sprite comics, but that is as far as they go. That is why they belong mentioned in this article as examples of the "art." TTN (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And Fredholm operator has no non-trivial coverage outside of mathematics, so we should merge it into the latter. The same argument could be made about 88 Minutes and drama films, or Amsterdam (city), New York and Montgomery County, New York.

Oppose. Take the above with a huge sense of sarcasm, but also take the point of logic. Your definition of non-trivial does not exactly merge with WP:Notability. The references note that some of them are the most popular webcomics in existance. Surely that is notable enough per the project guidelines; and while that may not be notable for someone who is not familiar with webcomics, but you could say the same about any topic Wikipedia covers, as I noted with my sarcastic reverie above. I also object to your defining them as "cheap versions of thier home pages", as the articles in question without a doubt are not spam/advertisements, and address thier topics in an encyclopedic manner (though not without some effort, there are fans who try to expand in good faith, but end up making things less encyclopedic). I would agree that the size and detail given to the webcomics in question, when compared to other topics, is a clear example of systemic bias, but that is not an argument for deletion or otherwise removal of content (Wikipedia policy is not to reduce the over-exposed topics, but to expand the areas that lack). Its unfortunate that WikiProject Comics doesn't have a project-specific guideline on notability, that would probably have nipped this in the bud. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 23:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topics have to be covered in reliable sources in order to retain articles. These do not currently have anything to establish independent notability beyond your subjective claims. These articles cover the plot, characters, and a few little community related things just the same as their homepages. If they all contained a number of sources similar to A History of Webcomics: The Golden Age: 1993-2005 (which is not enough on its own), that would be different. Without that, we may as well briefly describe the topic in this article and let the websites detail the plot points. TTN (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. I'm going to let editors with longer fuses detail the process-related reasons why this shouldn't happen, but I'm going to go with Keep on the grounds that this is deletionism at its most absurd. And that's all I'm willing to say about it. JuJube (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as well. Pretty obvious reasons.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is so obvious that these are actual topics, please add actual sources to assert it. Right now, one article has one actual source that is much more relevant here than in it. I doubt most sprite comic sites are reliable sources, so you need a ton of books just like that to make a ton of comments on all three series or a large amount of non-trivial mentions elsewhere. Until that happens, we are just providing details that can be found right on their sites. TTN (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh give me a friggin break. You know the majority of people actually going to post here are swamped with their own projects to clean up other articles you're probably going to make a beeline for or already have TTN. Is Wired magazine something we should consider unreliable? Newspapers? etc? And that's on a quick search. Are you even trying to make sure the targets are important beyond your scope of what is notable?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly is important enough to include from the Wired article? It boils down to "Bob and George is a popular web comic" and "8-bit Theater" is a popular web comic." You can try to scrounge up a bit more to apply context, but that is all it is really stating. That will be the tone of any other potential source available. That is much more relevant to the origins and popularization of sprite comics in general than anything else. Forgetting notability for a second, how is any of the content in these really necessary? After being cut down, I can't see either of them being over three or four paragraphs. Half of the will be duplicative of the information provided in this article anyways, so they may as well be placed here. TTN (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only one that even seems like a good in that regard is "Neglected Mario Characters". The other two have reception though but just feel too 'significant' to just write off as redirects: even people that know nothing about this subject are familiar with 8-Bit Theater. There has to be more.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be shocked if anything were found for 8-Bit Theater, but I really cannot imagine Bob and George obtaining anything other than "It's a popular web comic", "It's the first popular sprite comic", and other small comments like that. They're really only significant in regards to being the few popular sprite comics out of the tens of thousands that sprout up all over the place. If we ignore covering the stuff available right on their home pages (or what should be covered in the case of 8-Bit Theater), the rest of the relevant information fits right into here. TTN (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well looking this over, support Neglected Mario Characters (a bit on this talk page up top takes a swipe at it's notability), neutral on Bob and George, but still Oppose to 8-Bit Theater. New members tend to be taking merges as the equivalent of deletions, and while I'm unsure if an article in such a sense would be improved in any time relevantly close to now, it's at least giving it a chance.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's been a month with no further comments, I'm going to say that the consensus is not to merge and remove the templates. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 16:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]