Talk:PvP (webcomic)

This page needs an external link to the actual strip. jaknouse 02:49, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, so I did it. -Branddobbe 22:11, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

This article needs to explain why Brent is attacked by a Panda occasionally. It also needs to include something about Skull's comment "ale and whores," (with appropriate link) because this is a popular one liner that is often quoted. It should also say something about the many controversies that Kurtz has attracted/generated, as this comes up when people talk about his place in the online comic field.--Zhafnium 08:25, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ale and Whores comic is from 11Nov1999: http://www.pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=19991111 -Wade July 6, 2005

Added a mention of Miranda, Jade's sister. Also included a note about Scott's Dad. Also included the information about the comic book version published by Image Comics. --Zhafnium 03:58, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Does this article really need that many external links to the panda attacks? I think that people will get the idea simply from reading the text of the article and maybe from viewing two or three links. I think that you went a little overboard there. --Slung 19:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What the heck was After Hours? Can it get a mention here?

The link to Scott Kurtz in the opening paragraph simply redirects back to the page. Is there enough information on him to warrant his own page, or would a better solution be to simply remove the link?

I think he definitely deserves his own page. Kurtz frequently is at the center of a good many controversies (the Spells and Whistles incident comes to mind) that aren't directly tied to the comic. Gundato

Scott should be included as one of the characters, he is frequently seen in the strip addressing the audience or having conversation with his father!

Kurtz was born on March 15, 1971, in Watsonville, California. He later moved to West Des Moines, Iowa, where he attended Western Hills Elementary School and Stillwell Junior High. He showed an early talent for art, reading about and drawing comic book superheroes voraciously at an early age. He also showed a penchant for video and role playing games as early as 6th grade. At age 14, he moved to Bedford, Texas, and attended Trinity High School in Euless, Texas. After high school, he attended The University of North Texas, in Denton, where for a short time he drew a comic strip called "Captain Amazing" for the school paper. He dropped out of UNT before earning a degree.

Before achieving success with PvP, Kurtz worked at a sign studio and printshop, as a customer service representative via phone for computer hardware and software, and as an IT representative for a radio station.

Kurtz and his wife and pets currently live in Little Elm, Texas, a suburb of the Dallas/Ft. Worth area.

(I'll let someone else more knowledgeable about Wikipedia add this text if you feel it's relevant to the article. This information call all be verified by Kurtz.)

Personally I think it's pretty irrelevant, as Kurtz is not notable for much aside from PvP. --Kizor 21:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, he is one of the "big popular webcomics types" because of PvP, so contextualizing him wouldn't necessarily be bad, but unless it comes from a pre-existing source, such information counts as original research, which he prohibited. I've seen bits on his page about his Captain Amazing but I didn't know he dropped out, for example, and I'd want to make sure that was published somewhere else before we published it. --Fastfission 02:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I believe Kurtz does deserve at least his own paragraph inside the PvP article, since most webcomic artists do have articles. Though other webcomic artists (Such as the Penny-Arcade guys have done other things than just webcomics, more significant things to be precise (PAX, Childs Play). Kurtz needs some extra credit here. --AARST (Not logged in currently) 15 August 2006

We're in the process of merging and redirecting most of the webcomic artist articles into their respective webcomic articles. Most webcomic artist articles are permastubs that often violate WP:BLP. I'd suggest adding to this article whatever biographical information on this author is verifiable in reliable sources. If we find out later that there is a wealth of reliably sourced, verifiable biographical info worth branching into another article,then we can deal with that, but creating a new article that will have to be merged back here in a few weeks sounds like a waste. -- Dragonfiend 21:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

As for my addition to the wiki, here's an external link to PvP's official forums in which Scott admits the changes and states he's not going back. For anyone unaware, he's the poster PvP. [1]--Gillespee 23:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sadly, due to weekly forum purges, said post no longer exists. But it was there once.--Gillespee 20:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Kade is right about the "Jesus Christ endorses gayness" contreversy, when was the last time we heard about that? But when was the last time we heard about the "Graphamaximo" controversy? Is there something that makes one more worthy of inclusion than others? I know they both made a lot of people mad, but people seem to have simmered down about both.--Gillespee 22:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

No one objected, so it's done.--Gillespee 05:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Just as a note: I'm completely unaware if the Graphamaximo thing did raise some hackles...but I do know for certain that the only outcry I witnessed from the PvP Jesus Christ strip was a 60-page long thread on the official forums, nothing else. Plus, I know that he's practically built his reputation on saying outlandish stuff that riles everyones nerves. Is there a possibility that the person who got annoyed by it was Scott McCloud? Kade 02:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

From the article:

At the 2004 San Diego Comicon, Kurtz announced that he would offer to newspapers the entire PvP series to reprint for free [5], but only if the strips were reprinted without any changes made. Kurtz said he made this offer because of his dissatisfaction with the terms offered to cartoonists by syndicates. As of yet no major American newspaper has agreed to pick up his strip, even though it is free.

Kurtz reports on his website in October of 2004 that the Kansas City Star ran PvP 1. I don't know the whole history behind his offer, or if any other papers have picked ever up the strip, but the above paragraph is provably false. Perhaps someone with more background can help out? Dan 05:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

What if we changed the last sentence to say something like, "Few major American newspapers ran PvP." It seems like there was some success to this, but not the Syndicate Busting response Scott envisioned.--Gillespee 17:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Few major American newspapers ran PvP" seems incorrect, if the truth is that one newspaper ran the comic on a limited basis for a brief period of time. My recollection was that for a very brief time the Kansas City Star ran one PvP comic once per week in their weekly tech section, but would often drop it due to supposed "lack of space." I've changed the article to read "As of yet no major American newspaper has agreed to regularly pick up his strip, even though it is free. One newspaper, The Kansas City Star, briefly attempted to run one PvP comic per week in the fall of 2004." -- Dragonfiend 18:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

And didn't the writer of Non-Sequitor made attacks against Scott Kurtz in a few of his comics?

There's an IP-hopping vandal who likes to post personal attacks on Scott Kurtz here, mostly involving his weight. He seems to be connecting from Columbus, Ohio and Ohio State University. He's been warned sufficiently, so I will block him on sight whenever he vandalizes this article. If you are not an admin and notice one of his edits, go ahead and warn him, then leave a message on my talk page and I'll deal with him. You might also want to leave a message on WP:AIV whenever he shows up. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 23:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

PvP won an Eisner. Should this be noted? JONJONAUG 21:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

This was noted in the article on 23 July '06! --Ninevah 22:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm shocked that a Wikipedian would be so pretentious as to try and accuse someone of vandalism for simply updating a Wiki with info inputted by an author. By interpreting this as vandalism the person (( [SirGrant] )) has apparently claimed he knows more about PvP than the author of the comic, Scott Kurtz! I have cited my sources, which come straight from the horses mouth himself, and he accuses me of making a joke edit? I have cited my sources. He has not, he is simply banking on his status as a Wikipedian and self-appointed gatekeeper of knowledge. Refute my sources, Mr. Grant. If you try to remove my concretely proven entry then I shall have no choice but to NPOV this article.

68.88.201.13 02:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Oh, grow up already. If you are going to vandalize Wikipedia then you might as well come up with something creative, rather than just copying what someone else suggests. It is so completely dull that whenever someone encourages people to vandalize Wikipedia then everyone just hustles along like a little sheep. I'm sure that Scott Kurtz does not intend that people actually vandalize Wikipedia, and would rather that you just savor the actual joke of the strip rather than trying to make a dull parody of it on here. If you turkeys keep it up we'll just protect the article for a few days. (Mind you, I am a regular PvP reader and have nothing against Kurtz or the comic.) --Fastfission 02:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• For the record, Scott Kurtz has said the following:

Somehow the wiki page for PvP is locked because of suspected vandalism.

I think that somebody just updated Francis' entry with what Marcy wrote. Which I think should stand. Especially if it links back to that strip.

Does anyone know who I can email at Wikipedia to request that? source

So the guy who wrote it thinks that it ought to stay changed. I have expressed a preference for appending Marcy has suggested that Francis' Wikipedia entry should read "collects statues of ponies and is a total gaylord." --Superluser 04:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Read what your source said "Wikipedia is susceptable to vandles for example frances entry is all wrong it should read..." clearly indicating that she is vandalising his article so I was removing what is clearly vandalism of frances entry SirGrant 02:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

on the one hand, this is an encyclopaedia, and should be moderately mature, i agree, but we need not be completely dry and humourless -- espescially in an article about a webcomic; what is, whilst being other things aswell, fundementally a funny.

including 'is a total gaylord and collects ponies' in the article with a refference would be good, imo, for the following reasons:

• is funny/interesting. including a 'vandalism' in an article about PVP that cites a PVP episode about wikipedia, that shows a charector putting that vandalism on this wikipedia entry.

• its relevent. its actually a valid comment on wikipedia: we all know that wikipedia both benifits and suffers from the fact that anyone can edit it.

• it's an interesting piece of trivia: wikipedia got mentioned in PvP. a bit wikipedia centric, yes, but then this is wikipedia.

Also, when this was done before, the refference made it into the article:

FoxTrot article, in refference to this strip.

"In one strip, he says that he likes Wikipedia, posting a picture of Paige under the warthog and rabies articles, a feat which fans of the strip imitated."

Penny_Arcade_(comic) article, in refference to this strip.

"Penny Arcade satirizies Wikipedia with a hypothetical scenario of Skeletor vandalizing the He-Man article"

"in the news post for the day of the comic shown above, Tycho explained his criticisms of Wikipedia and why he does not trust it."

So, refferensing the strip in the article definately would be consistant.

My vote is to whack something like this onto the end of the fransis entry:

(is a total gay lord who collects ponies --marcy 22:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC))

and then having something like this at the end of marcy's entry:

--DakAD 23:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree that Francis is not a total gaylord or collects ponies! He is a total nerd! He is my favorite and there is nothing you can do to stop me from wearing my Francis shirt proudly! I represent the fans that are as shy as I am! I say that we, we the nerds, shal speak up in the name of a teenager just like us is treated with the correct respect of a nerd! I AM PROUD TO ARGUE THAT FRANCIS IS NOT A TOTAL GAYLORD! I HATE ALL THAT SAY HE IS! HE IS NOT! I AM MAPLESTORYGRRL!

––MapleStoryGrrl 9:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Because enough PvP readers cannot resist simply enjoying Scott's comics and instead have to try and uncreatively act them out in real life (see the August 12 comic), I've semi-protected the page from new user editing. Sorry for the inconvenience, it will be lifted after a few days. Regular editors who try to vandalize the article do so at the risk of being blocked. --Fastfission 02:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

[Insert fair-use "Owned" graphic here] Good catch, Fastfission. Immediately after I read the comic, I came here full of dread, only to see that I wasn't the only one. ;) —BorgHunter (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

On the PVP forums [3] Scott mentions that he would like Francis's bio to be updated with the new info, especially if it links back to the comic.

That sounds like WP:VANITY to me. -- Dragonfiend 04:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would like to point out that this was most likely a counter to the argument that "This isn't what Scott Kurtz would have wanted," and not the argument "This is what Scott Kurtz wants, now do it because he is a god!" --Superluser 05:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

True enough, which makes it very disappointing. I thought higher of him. Perhaps he doesn't understand Wikipedia or respect it. I thought he would be a bit more progressive in his thinking about what the internet can do (especially since he has spent so much time deflecting flack from people who think that webcomics are just a fad), but I was wrong about that. --Fastfission 20:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

So he does. Doing so would be a bit funny, but it'd be more appropriate in the "Trivia" section. Wikipedia mentions in webcomics are generally placed there. --Kizor 05:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

We'll think about it after a few days when it is no longer fresh. I've no problem in putting references like this in, once it is obviously not just a plan to enact something silly from the comic itself. --Fastfission 20:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure he understands the context of what everyone was doing. It wasn't a cited, referenced, "Marcy says BLAH," it was just "BLAH." A referenced link to the comic might be appropriate, but I don't think it's really notable enough for inclusion either. And I'm still certain that Scott does not want his readers vandalizing Wikipedia. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

On a scale of one to User:Stephencolbert, this is a rather benign mention of Wikipedia. Compare to: Penny Arcade, FoxTrot. Regarding the statement itself it should go in Marcy's section, if at all: WP:SELF. Nifboy 06:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

http://www.imagecomics.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=19021&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

"Somehow the wiki page for PvP is locked because of suspected vandalism.

I think that somebody just updated Francis' entry with what Marcy wrote. Which I think should stand. Especially if it links back to that strip.

Does anyone know who I can email at Wikipedia to request that?"

• You know, it occurs to me that if Kurtz really wanted Francis' Wikipedia section to mention that he collects statues of ponies, as the sole creator of PvP canon he could simply draw a strip showing that Francis does, in fact, collect statues of ponies.

• • Then he should do that. But when it's clearly a joke, and one predicated on vandalizing Wikipedia, then I don't think we should treat it too seriously. I think it would be pretty silly for him to make his creative decisions based around what his Wikipedia entry says. --Fastfission 19:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

This can easily be entered as one of the running gags - Marcy is constantly slamming Francis in various ways.

• When the dust settles on all of this then we can decide whether or not that particular phrase is useful for describing this. The goal here is to make a useful and correct entry, though, not to enact self-referential jokes from the strip. --Fastfission 20:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • It looks like it's going to be an actual storyline, so this might go on for a while. I do think the full-protect should be removed, though. Nifboy 03:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the full protect should be lifted because since tihs is going to be a storyline I think we should wait until the storyline is completed until we enter the information because it seems like it's gonna be changing on a day to day basis as more comics come out. Cause this seems to be a jab at the blocked page I think unlocking it will open all sorts of vandalism I think we should just wait until the dust settles and onec the storyline is complete I'm sure all the information will be cleared and we can put it up as deemed fit cause if we put it up as kurtz puts it up we are only painting an incomplete pictureSirGrant 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not so concerned about the maybe two sentences that will ultimately be added because of this; I just don't think we should explicitly discourage all editing during a time when a large number of eyes are on this article; let's face it, it's start-class, it could use a lot of improvement. Nifboy 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. I think keeping it protected sends a nice message to those who actually think that Wikipedia is just a playground for vandals. Kurtz does not appear to know much about how Wikipedia works himself ("submit a ticket to the Wiki mods"? I know that it is unreasonable to project total logic onto comic characters at the expense of a joke, but at least the basic approach could be done correctly, i.e. "report you to a Wiki administrator" or something like that. "Submit a ticket to the Wiki mods" sounds to someone who knows anything about Wikipedia as jarring as someone saying "I will un-load that e-file that you sent me!" would to someone who was computer literate. I mean, I don't expect him to have Francis just editing back his own page, or insisting the material be removed as both irrelevant and unverifiable, or to know that you won't get banned indefinitely for one minor vandalism, but it would only take a minute or two to get the right language right).--Fastfission 14:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Submit a ticket to the Wiki mods" is a reference to WoW. - Fëaluinix 14:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, whatever the outcome, I'm forced to note that this is getting more and more interesting. --Kizor 04:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

What about semi-protection for the time being because that would at least keep random vandles out but still allow for meaningful edits SirGrant 05:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've added a html comment to the Francis section, that will hopefully will slow down some of the vandalism that will occur because of the current PVP storyline. I tried to word it as neutral and clear as possible, but I would appreciate someone looking at it, and tell me if it is well worded and a good idea. --Codemonkey 07:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Guys, I should point out that there isn't really a source for Francis collecting ponies. This is something that only Marcy seems to know, so it constitutes original research on the part of Marcy. And the fact she thinks this makes Francis a gaylord is Marcy's WP:POV. --Pc13 09:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

In today's strip (14 Aug) Francis has confirmed the collection. However, I agree it is trivial and likely part of a small story arc that can be ignored. The same arguments are constantly going on for Light Warriors (8-Bit Theater) and Characters of 8-Bit Theater. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 11:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm just thinking, should Suitecannes even be on the list of minor characters? After all, her only existance was in 1 strip, and there's no sign that she'll be returning. I find it odd that a 1 strip character is in the list, while Ricky Tuttle, who's been in the strip as a major part of at least a couple of plotlines, isn't. Ruduen 01:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

For Suitecannes, I think she was in a run of about a week way back when. For Tuttle, go fer it!. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 12:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wow. No mention of any of the controversies sparked by Kurtz and his asshole-like behavior. I can count at least the S&W incident, the cover art incident, the "Jesus endorses Gays" incident, the "I will not shake hands" incident (written off as a joke but it still sparked a lot of discussion), the numerous attacks he's made on Penny Arcade (now reconciled) and later on CAD... Maybe all this should be included. --Energman 15:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I only read the comic, ignoring all the stuff around it. Feel free to add it, but, Jimbo has said, "... it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 16:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps not, but right now the article only says "Scott Kurtz is controversial" and offers nothing else to back it up. There should be some example in here to show that he's earned that or you may as well take even that sentence out because it's unsourced.Rebochan 13:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Seems recent changes in how the PvP archive works has made most of the links to example strips in this article point to nothing. -- Logotu 22:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Corrected. Odd that it wasn't done sooner. —Tamfang 07:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

And with yet another change to the website, Kurtz breaks all the archive links again! Anybody have time to go through and change them all? -- Logotu (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Isn't this what 301 http codes are for...? Rawling4851 21:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are more broken links, unfortunately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.176.233 (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just added a running gag to the list, the one about ambulances showing up in the last panel, but since I'm not from an english speaking country I fear I might have spelled something wrong, can anyone check it for me? Bill Gama 21:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Spelling is accurate; style is a bit awkward but I see no obvious way to improve it. —Tamfang 06:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

This seems to be mostly a running gag and character list - granted, major characters should have mention, but that many minor characters?

And could there please be a section on reception, criticism, or controversy, especially if Scott Kurtz is going to be merged with this (since I've seen others complain about his arrogance, and he has done a good bit of jerky things, like the CAD premium thing)? Right now it seems like something that should be on comixpedia, not wikipedia.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I hardly think that this "Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia," why does it have a top importance template. It should really be Mid and maybe High if you want to push it. While it may be important PvP is not quite as relevent to the culture as a whole as some of the other top importance comics articles, say Superman or Spiderman.

I beleive this should be changed to a mid importance template. HuckbeinMK3 (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I politely disagree. Whenever there is a large gathering in the comics industry (eg comicon), Scott Kurz and PVP represent a major component of the webcomic portion of that industry. Scott is one of the most sought after panelists and speakers on webcomics, and PVP led the entire industry in proving a webcomic model that made money without being backed by a huge syndication. Superman and Spiderman may have a longer historical background, but PVP and Scott certinaly have had a huge run this decade and have significantly impacted a huge internet audience and proven a working independant webcomic business model. Any encyclopedia that includes the internet age must have Scott Kurtz and PVP included.

If your criteria is only the published comic book industry in the 20th century, you might have a point, but the comics industry in the last decade has moved far beyond that with movies, webcomics, merchandise, graphic novels, anime - attending any major comic convention (again, comicon) in this last decade would have made this abundantly clear. Scott Kurtz and PVP belong exactly where they are. Timmccloud (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

• (from the talk page of Phil Sandifer )

I'm curious - would you please explain your reasoning for re-rating PVP from TOP to High? There should be at least one Webcomic of top importance in the Comics list, and by any stretch of the imagination, PVP Online is that comic. Please see my reasoning in the discussion above; I feel your edit is misplaced, and you may only be considering "print" comics in your judgement, wheras webcomics are considered a significant part of the comics industry in this day and age. I look forward to hearing your input on this issue, either here, my talk page, or in the article discussion section. I am dissapointed though that you did not discuss your change first when there is an already existing discussion on the issue. Timmccloud (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think anybody looking at the history of my contributions on Wikipedia would be hard-pressed to call me anti-webcomic, and I must say, I resent the accusation. I downgraded PvP to high importance for a couple of reasons. First, although I think webcomics are tremendously important, they're still a new medium, and it's difficult to say that any of them have reached top importance. As it stands the only comic strips of the 1980s on to be top importance is Calvin and Hobbes. I'd consider putting The Far Side and maybe Bloom County on that list, but even if you expanded to the next obvious tier - Foxtrot and Dilbert - you're still miles from PvP in terms of measurable cultural impact.

Which leaves you with historical impact. PvP is not the most successful webcomic (that's probably Penny Arcade, which I also downgraded). It's not the first one to jump to print (that's Helen, Sweetheart of the Internet, which is of unranked importance). It's a very interesting recent development in comics nonetheless - important enough, in fact, that I have no problem putting it in the high importance category (and I have trouble getting to a dozen webcomics I'd do that with - PvP, Penny Arcade, Diesel Sweeties, Hutch Owen, and American Elf are the only shoo-ins I can think of). But I do not think, if we were picking 100 articles on comics for a print encyclopedia (where space is a premium) that PvP would make it. It wouldn't even be the first webcomic I'd pick, honestly - I think by any measure that one would have to be Penny Arcade. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Phil, youv'e answered my question with thought and reasoning - The last couple edits to do the same did not provide reasoning, and all I really wanted was the edit backed by something other than "just 'cause i wanna". Thanks again! I would like to take a moment then, by your reasoning, to propose one of two things. If there are no webcomics of top importance, then either Talk:Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards and Talk:Webcomic need to be removed from the "Top Importance Comics" catagory, or you should follow your reasoning that both PVP and Penny Arcade should be re-rated as Top, at the very least for consistancy sake since the subject is considered top importance. I would like to take the opportunity to make the argument that in the comics industry, webcomics are the most significant change in the medium in at least 50 years, and even though they do not make the numbers of the classic print comics. Generalizing the issue - because of restrictive censorship on the sunday comics page, and the difficutly in getting into mainstream printed comics - the only comics medium that can push the boundries of the art right now is the uncensored self published webcomic. This would not be the first broad catagory in our encyclopedia that has a minority topic which deserves some extra "pushing" in order for the encylopedia to represent the topic in a thurough and holistic manner. I have no plans to revert your edit because you have laid out a reasoned and appropriate justification, but I would beg you to reconsider PVP and possible add Penny Arcade to the Top importance catagory. Thank you Phil. Timmccloud (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll think about it - as it stands my inclination is to leave only webcomic in the top importance category - I agree with you that webcomics are a significant development in comics history, but I think it's too soon to identify ones that are as important as the other comics in the top importance category. But I'm currently going through the high importance category, and will do mid importance next, and when I have a better sense of what's where I may reconsider. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Awesome. Drop me a line when you have finished your classification review, I would be interested in the results of your work and what insights that gives you after your are done.Timmccloud (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Many of the citations on the website to older strips have had their links broken due to a redeisgn of the PVP website, and need to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.10.4 (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ive managed to find a few, the sites being re-done so its bound to happen. Ill fix as needed. 124.182.52.116 (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC) HarlequinReply

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just curious, isn't about time to add Lolbat to the list of recurring characters? 86.95.212.91 (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can someone manage that? Much of the article is bloated in length and full of POV slop that any reader would be ashamed of, let alone an editor. 66.41.18.1 (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have a number of Dragon magazines from the early 2000s with PvP strips on the subject of D&D reproduced therein. I don't have the entire archive of issues, so I can't make a substantial contribution on this score to the article, but if someone could include them it would be good. Lstanley1979 (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Bulldog and Cooch references are screwed up - the links lead to completely unrelated comics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry-kun (talk • contribs) 21:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Jade is listed at http://www.pvponline.com/new-readers/ as Jade Fontaine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.188.173 (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The character bios are massively fancruftical - they should ideally be a few sentences each at most, not several paragraphs. The level of detail fails WP:TRIVIA. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The URL of the webcomic (www.pvponline.com) now leads to a "Domain for sale" site. Does anyone have any information where the webcomic has gone to? Zornfalke (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

This info was what I came here seeking...  :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.203.223 (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on PvP. 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/20070125010558/http://www.pvponline.com/newspro/archives/arc7-2006.html to http://www.pvponline.com/newspro/archives/arc7-2006.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061104023726/http://www.pvponline.com/blog/2877/she-said to http://www.pvponline.com/blog/2877/she-said
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927040841/http://www.evilavatarradio.com/audio/EAR.Episode16.ScottKurtz.mp3 to http://www.evilavatarradio.com/audio/EAR.Episode16.ScottKurtz.mp3

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have upgraded this article to a C-quality ranking. The definition for C-quality articles is: "The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup." I think that's an accurate description here. It is substantial, containing most of what people would want to know. However, it would benefit greatly from information drawn from more independent coverage, such as reviews of the comic. The character biographies also need clean-up, to be more concise, up to date, and based as much as possible on secondary sources. HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

The article mentions that a reboot happened in May 2020, but going through the strips finds an interlude Kurtz made about caring for his sick father, and then in late 2021 it returned to the old character ages with a COVID related plot line. I’ve been unable to find anything about this change, other than a tweet where Kurtz refers to it as a “PVP classic” upload. Should the reboot be labeled as over? Or should there be an official word first? I spent about an hour looking today and was unable to find any forum post, blog post, tweet, etc saying anything firmly one way or the other 2600:1700:1430:D740:2CD3:EC54:2BFA:4A56 (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Unfortunately, there are very few secondary sources on the recent activities of PvP. There was coverage of the timeskip in 2020, but I haven't found any coverage of the Mort series or the timejumpback. (I did find this article on a spinoff, Table Titans.) I would recommmend that this article notes that the time skip ended, citing the PvP webpage, and marks this with a "secondary source needed"-style tag. HenryCrun15 (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just a question, is calling PVP a video game webcomic still accurate? Appreciate it used to be, but hasn't really been about gaming for a while. Perhaps it's just a plain old webcomic now? 92.236.229.87 (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think it's fair to call it a video game webcomic because of it's roots as a video game webcomic and as the comic that arguably began the whole video game comics craze. In my view, I think of it as less of a descriptor of what the webcomic is about and more of a genre of webcomics that share roots, and PvP does belong in that discussion.

Especially looking at the history of it, it may make the most sense to keep it as a "video game web comic" for clarity reasons, imo. Wherewasmybrain (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply