Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic)

Miscarriage funny?

It might be a good idea to remove the capitalized "CONVENIENT MISCARRIAGE" from the wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.253.155.135 (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Some people on the internet are joking around and photoshoping the comic and they are quite funny. Is this worth putting down? I mean the miscarriage comic was the funniest one he ever drawn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.78.99 (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really notable. Q ^{T C} 05:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also not really funny. JuJube (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It was pretty damn funny, I think Buckley deserves appreciation of some kind.121.220.69.5 (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem particularly notable or funny. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 13:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Extremely funny, yet not notable. JuJube, 121.220.69.5, let's try to keep on topic and limit our discussion to that which directly pertains to the article. Every Dog's Day (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The latest Cyanide and Happiness comic was a direct parody of the miscarriage comic, and featured a direct quote from Tim Buckley. Perhaps this one is notable, and could be added to the article. --Jedravent (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it also notable that after that comic was made the word "explosm" was censored of the Ctrl Alt Del forums to prevent linking to Cyanide and Happiness? Ctrl Alt Del forums do not normally censor words, not even ones that are not allowed by their rules.(sorry if i did this wrong, i know nothing of wiki) --69.131.87.137 (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow that's a bit OTT —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Chain Of Flowers (talk • contribs) 09:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You ask me, this page needs a spoiler warning. Coolgamer (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Artichoker^[talk] 14:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Here Is The Cyanide And Happiness Comic As Well As The Original For Comparison. [1] [2] cal05000 (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

B^U

Has anyone ever noticed all his characters make the B^U face? Perhaps we should mention that. I mean, it's certainly more important than story details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.179.78 (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have some reliably sourced information about "'B' to the power of 'U'" being encyclopedically significant to this article, please feel free to add it to the article.

As an aside, when instigating a new section of conversation, you should add it below all previous sections, not at the top. Cheers! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

VG Cats' recent April Fools' gag had a parody of CAD, entitled "Bee Arrow Up You". So we might have a reliable source for the B^U thing after all. Link --Jedravent (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this talk page was recently featured on the Something Awful Forums' webcomic thread. This is what my last edit summary made reference to. --Jedravent (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This should absolutely be mentioned, it's the trademark of ctrl alt del.

What happen?

Someone set up the bomb or something? Where's the rest of the talk topics? And Thrindel? How is there a discussion here and Thrindel is not part of it?JackorKnave (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about the archives, they can be found here and here. Artichoker^[talk] 01:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Why was it archived? Was the discussion really that long? JackorKnave (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was long enough for an archive. If you have more questions about archiving, most of them are answered here. Artichoker^[talk] 01:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

POV problem with genre listing

This comic is claimed to be part of the "humor" genre. Doesn't this break NPOV by implying that it is actually funny? Wanglordofwangs (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

All humor is subjective. While it may be arguable whether or not you personally find the comic funny, there's no 'controversy' or debate as to whether or not the intention of the website is primarily humor. It's a genre listing, not a personal opinion, so no, it does not clash with NPOV.--Thrindel (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize author intentions determined what genre a work falls into. If he had written a Star Wars rip-off but the intention was to write a hard-hitting detective comic, would we list "mystery" as the genre, rather than fantasy/science fiction? Cyclone231231 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If it ended up being a mystery that takes place in a sci-fi setting, I imagine it would be listed under both genres. To use your example though, just because someone figures out the mystery by page two, and they didn't feel there was much of a mystery in the story, doesn't mean it wouldn't be listed under the mystery genre. They may not consider it a good mystery, but then that sort of distinction is where you start getting into POV issues.--Thrindel (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's what they mean, Thrindel. This hypothetical comic wouldn't be a mystery at all, there'd be nothing to show it's a mystery, because it isn't, so why should it be listed as a mystery comic then? I could make a comic and say it's an homage to the Godfather movies, when it's actually about a dancing banana, so what would it be listed as? 121.220.69.5 (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If there was nothing to show that it was a mystery, then no, I doubt that it would be classified as such. However that example doesn't really draw a parallel to this situation. Barring it's current story, there is an awful lot of material there that seems obviously intended as humor. It's pretty clear that he's not trying to draw a humor strip and coming up with an action title, or whatever. There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia with the 'humor' genre. I don't think "is funny to everyone" is a prerequisite for the listing.

It's hardly an important detail of the article, but it seems odd to me to suggest its removal when so many other webcomics articles share the same genre tag. If I may ask, what do you feel makes this article the exception, and what would you suggest the listed genres be?--Thrindel (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This argument is pathetic and pointy. By this logic, the "humor" category should be taken off every webcomic ever, because you'll always find one jerkoff who thinks it isn't funny. JuJube (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This argument is pointy? THAT argument is pointy, good sir! Quoth WP:POINT: "For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they oppose." Sound like anything you might know about? "Wikipedia, it is inconsistent," also a quote from WP:POINT Cyclone231231 (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You are using WP:POINT to justify breaking WP:POINT. Hilarious. How about addressing the issue at hand - that removing th "humor" category from Ctrl+Alt+Del because some people don't think it's funny is ridiculous? JuJube (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Does ANYONE think it's funny? 137.222.214.63 (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about the comic, sure, I find some parts of it humorous. Artichoker^[talk] 19:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, enough people do for the merchandising to be profitable. You people need to stop being snarky, get whatever problems you have with the author dealt with, stop trying to use Wikipedia to kick up shit and get back to actually making an encyclopedia. JuJube (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

To be completely honest, webcomics have no place at all in an encyclopedia. This is about as worthwhile of an article (as are all other webcomic articles, for that matter) as a theoretical article on how I spent, say, January 29th, 2001. "Actually making an encyclopedia" would be nominating this for deletion. GoatDoomOcculta (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not so, as this webcomic is notable because it has third party sources. Artichoker^[talk] 12:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because something has a third party source, or even sources, does not mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia. Referring back to the theoretical article about how I spent January 29th, 2001, what if I had held up a gas station that day, dressed in a chicken suit, and a half dozen local TV stations and/or newspapers had articles on my robbery - would that belong in an encyclopedia? By your logic it would, but obviously, it does not, and neither does this nor probably any other webcomic article. As for the alleged third-party sources for this article, out of 23 references, a whopping 7 of those are third-party. 2 are from insignificant local newspapers, another 2 are referring to the same exact thing - a couple of unimportant comics Buckley did for Civilization ("In 2007, Ctrl+Alt+Del partnered with 2K Games/Firaxis Games to produce a series of comics for Sid Meier's Civilization Daydreams [21][22][23]"). Even the quote is inaccurate - CAD did not partner with these companies, Buckley did, and just because something is relevant to the author does not mean that it belongs in his comic's article. Hell, it wasn't even a "partnership", it was more like "Hey, draw us some comics", and that was that. There's nothing even close to a "partnering" there. And, again, it's not even relevant to CAD, and yet 40% of the third-party sources for this article are for that line alone - and it's not even about the damn comic!

Speaking of irrelevant lines that have nothing to do with the comic, but rather, the author (who - no, does not warrant his own Wikipedia entry), how about these two here? "There was an interview with Tim Buckley on CBSNews.com.[14]" and "In October of 2006, Tim Buckley gave a lecture at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute[15][16] in Troy, New York." I fail to see how an interview with Buckley on CBSNews.com is at all pertinent to an encyclopedia entry on CAD. As for the second quote - further irrelevance about Buckley, rather than CAD. Both of these lines should be removed due to their worthlessness and utter irrelevance to the intended subject of this Wikipedia entry.

Upon removal of these completely irrelevant lines, you'll see that CAD is in fact about as notable as my theoretical January 29th, 2001 - and as unimportant to an encyclopedia. The only third-party sources available for this relate to Buckley himself, rather than CAD, and one of them is as insignificant as a campus newspaper - is that even allowed to be called a notable third-party source?!

Summary: This is not notable at all. The only "third-party sources" were added in a desperate attempt to make it seem so, and they are all relating to Buckley, rather than CAD. These irrelevant lines need to be removed, and consequently, the references associated with them, and then, seeing as this subject is not even slightly notable, let's nominate it for deletion, shall we? GoatDoomOcculta (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment that this webcomic is nationally known, whereas your January 292001 incident would not be. I actually agree that most of these sources are either irrelevant to the topic, or non-notable; and I could see this failing an AfD. Artichoker^[talk] 15:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nitpicking a bit, two of my best friends and my ex were arrested in September last year (Vanessa Waisbrot, Candace Basaker, James Riley) for robbing a Sunoco dressed as ninjas and then trying to flee to California days later. This was on major news websites (moreso than CAD and Buckley have ever been) as well as countless local news stations in Pittsburgh and Kentucky (where they were apprehended). Vanessa and James were even on America's Most Wanted, and are still on the show's online database as CAPTURED. However, if someone were to write a Wikipedia entry for them, individually or collectively, I guarantee it would be deleted about as fast as it was put up, despite them being far more notable than CAD and Buckley, by Wikipedia's definition of notability.

Regardless, since you agree that the third-party references are largely (read: entirely) irrelevant to the intended subject of this article, would anyone besides Thrindel be opposed to be removing them, and nominating this for deletion? GoatDoomOcculta (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually if all of the details you have given are true, I see no reason why the article wouldn't stay. With significant sources and coverage, as well as being on the FBI's most wanted warrant an article.

I'm not opposed to your nomination for deletion; I would probably vote weak delete in it anyways. Artichoker^[talk] 19:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll write an article about them, then. That should be fun and I'm sure James will be thrilled when he gets out of prison. I never thought to do that. Haha.

I'll also delete the irrelevant information and sources in the CAD article. How do I nominate it for deletion, though? GoatDoomOcculta (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:AFD gives you a step-by-step process for putting an article up for deletion. If you have any further questions about this, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Artichoker^[talk] 20:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to restate some points I made during a very similar discussion [3] that is now archived, since you're bringing op the exact same points.

I want to preface this by saying that if you really feel this article will pass deletion (and really feel it needs to be deleted), then by all means, list it for such. It's not something I'll support personally, as I feel it's a little drastic, however if some neutral administrators look at the article and decide it should be deleted, I have no problem with that.

While this article does contain quite a few sources from the website itself (although still not nearly as many as the VGCats article, which is nearly 90% so), the WP:SELFPUB states that self-published sources may be used in articles about themselves (which would be the case here, using the website as a source for the article about the website) so long as they meet a list of requirements.

Most of the requirements are a non-issue with the sources in this article. They don't refer to third parties, there is no reasonable doubt as to the author, etc. The biggest question mark about them as I see it would be whether or they are relevant to the notability of the article. Now obviously some of these are strictly information-based sources, such as "Ethan is of Irish Descent". That's proving information in the article more than it is trying to say that that particular tidbit of info is notable.

Some of the other references, though, are (I believe) speaking to notability, or combined with other third party sources (such as the lecture mention on the school website, plus Buckley's newspost on the topic) to build a better overall picture of a particular note.

My argument would be that, were the comic not notable or cared about in any sense at all, as you are suggesting, I can't see its author being asked to speak at a college, or being interviewed by CBSNews.com, or hired by a video game company to do promotional comic work for a game. It wouldn't be so much that those Civilization comics themselves are notable, but more that CtrlAltDel and its creator are notable enough that, when the game developer goes looking for webcomics to hire, of the possibly millions of webcomics that are online, CtrlAltDel is one of those they approached. And I don't think that would be the case, (the hiring, the lecture, the CBS interview, etc) were the comic not notable and known outside of its direct fanbase.

"Even the quote is inaccurate - CAD did not partner with these companies, Buckley did, and just because something is relevant to the author does not mean that it belongs in his comic's article." Buckley is CtrlAltDel. As far as I know, he's the only one that works on it, and it's the only thing he's notable for, which is why he doesn't have his own article. And if you look at the Civilization comics, they are clearly done in the same style and format, and posted on the CtrlAltDel website, and if you look at the third party reference, they clearly state that they've contracted/hired/whatever the artists of well-known webcomics. What Buckley did on January 29th, 2001 would not be of importance to a CtrlAltDel article just because he's the artist of the comic, but comic work, interviews, lectures that he is asked to do because the comic is well-known is relevant to the article, and the notability of the article.

When this article was bloated and full of references from all over the place (the 1up.com article mention, interviews, etc) it was too big and fansite-ish. Now that it's been pruned back, it "doesn't have enough sources". I fully agree that this article should be trim, and doesn't require all of the bloat it had months ago (the episode recaps, lengthy character bios, etc). But I think there's plenty there for the article to pass a notability test, especially compared to some other webcomic articles that remain untouched.

If you really want to go try and get every webcomic article on Wikipedia deleted for the reasons you stated, then by all means, knock yourself out. But don't gut an article of decent sources just to achieve that goal. Take it to AfD as it is, and let the administrators decide if the sources are notable. I'll also point out that the editor who originally suggested the article for deletion, upon seeing the listing of new sources, has changed his mind.--Thrindel (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also added another third party source to the article.--Thrindel (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thrindel, Thrindel, Thrindel... I'm certainly not going to respond point-by-point to that massive wall of text, but I will touch on a few things and then carry on with the trimming and deletion process. First, the issue here is not the VGCats article. Once this passes for deletion, feel free to target the VGCats one to prove your WP:POINT, I honestly don't care.

My issue is not with the large number of sources that are simply CAD or another Buckley-thing, but rather, the small number that aren't. If there were a substantial number of relevant, worthwhile, and notable third-party sources, then the first-party ones would be perfectly fine. The fact of the matter is, though, that there just aren't.

Buckley (who is clearly not you) was asked to speak at a single, insignificant college - that doesn't make his comic notable. He probably asked to speak there, or a high-ranking faculty member there was a fan of CAD. Same goes for the Civilization comics. Did Buckley even get paid for those? - you said he was hired. And again, that's not the point - that makes the author notable, not the comic itself. If you want to make a Buckley article then go for it, but I'm pretty sure you'd take considerable issue with the whole ROM incident inevitably being in there.

As for the author's deeds being irrelevant to his or her work(s) in an encyclopedia article on that work, take a look at The Wheel Of Time, or American Psycho, or the Mona Lisa - do you see irrelevant information about Robert Jordan, Brett Easton ellis, or da Vinci in those articles? Of course not, because they're articles on those works, and not the men behind them.

"When this article was bloated and full of references from all over the place (the 1up.com article mention, interviews, etc) it was too big and fansite-ish. Now that it's been pruned back, it 'doesn't have enough sources'." -- If the article needs to have notable but irrelevant sources in order to be considered notable, then the subject of the article is clearly not notable, and thus should not exist. This should pass for deletion with relative ease.

Anyway, are campus newspapers considered notable? If so, then I'll go and nominate this right away, but if not, I'd appreciate a non-Thrindel Wikipedian's answer and then I'll go and take that out and then nominate it. Thanks! GoatDoomOcculta (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The third-party sources you just added were also in relation to Buckley himself and have next to no relevance to CAD itself. All you're doing is adding even more sugar to the gas tank. GoatDoomOcculta (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why wait to nominate at all? If you really feel the article will pass AfD without these sources, then these sources being there shouldn't prevent it from passing either. If they don't lend notability to the article, that can be decided there, by neutral administrators and we can be done with it. Nominate the article.--Thrindel (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, if you are going to nominate for AFD then you should leave the article as is instead of stripping everything out, seems sorta like stripping the doors off a car before the insurance adjuster sees it, to ensure it is scrapped. Knowledgeum (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Pile-on agreement. It wouldn't make sense to scrap and article and then nominate for deletion. Artichoker^[talk] 21:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll go do that right now. I have yet to look into the AfD process, and I'm a fairly new Wikipedia editor, but I assume that when I nominate it, I get to write a bit as to why it should be deleted? I feel that neutral administrators, without having the irrelevance explained to them, may simply not notice it and let it slide. GoatDoomOcculta (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have to direct neutral administrators as to why something should be deleted it seems fairly pointless. If they are truely neutral then they should be able ot look at the AFD in context with the article and make thier choice without having to be told one way or another. Knowledgeum (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm heading out for the night. If someone else wants to nominate this tonight, then by all means, do so. Barring that, I'll do it myself tomorrow. Cheers. GoatDoomOcculta (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to waste you time and do it, go ahead. It will be fun to see you with egg on your face. JuJube (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

JuJube, Thrindel: let me remind you that this is a talk page intended to help efficiently edit and manage this article. It is not a place to throw insults or defend your interests. As long as he follows the proper procedure, GoatDoomOcculta can nominate this article for deletion. It does no good to sling veiled insults about the "egg on [his] face". Also, Thrindel, you have made the above points numerous times over the course of this discussion page. They have been archived and duly noted. There is no need to reiterate your feelings every time someone tries to edit the article. If you feel it is necessary, just give a short summary or link to one of your prior defenses of CAD. Now, about the article: The references which relate only to Tim Buckley do not belong in this article. Their proponents state that they are needed to establish notability, as they show that Tim Buckley is notable. However, Buckley's notability is of no consequence to that of this article. Winston Churchill was a poet, however, Wikipedia does not have pages for his individual poems because the notability of a person does not make their artistic creations notable. The fact that Buckley spoke at a college should not be used to establish notability for the CAD webcomic. Every Dog's Day (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You've missed the point I was making. None of the references in the article relate "only to Tim Buckley". The only notability Buckley has is directly related to CAD, and that he was invited to speak at a college about the comic strip and because of the comic strip is what pertains to the notability of the comic strip. There are no references attempting to establish Buckley's notability as a separate entity. All mentions and references to Tim Buckley in the article are directly related to his role as the creator of the comic strip that the article pertains to. Your example with Winston Churchill is backwards and inapplicable to this situation. Buckley's notability doesn't make CAD notable. If anything, quite the opposite. To sum up, there is no information about Buckley in the article that is not also about CtrlAltDel. --Thrindel (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Considering it's been over a week without any actual AfD action going on, it sounds like an empty threat just came and went. Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 10:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Traffic

There is no corresponding evidence to show that the traffic change was caused by a storyline, or any other event in particular. This [4] forum post from Tim offers a possible explanation, and he's right, if you look at Penny Arcade's traffic there is a significant dip as well, so it may just be seasonal, which is hardly notable enough for inclusion into a criticism section.--Thrindel (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, I am still a little skeptical; for if the trend continues to stay in a downward fashion when school starts again, this information should be re-included. Artichoker^[talk] 20:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. As long as there's something more to go on. But then that might be "original research", but I guess we can cross that bridge when we come to it.--Thrindel (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Would you mind explaining what original research you are talking about? If there is graphical evidence showing a significant trend downwards, I would call that verifiable information. Artichoker^[talk] 20:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh without a doubt it is verifiable that the traffic dipped. But we don't have any actual evidence as to why the traffic experienced a decline, and short of interviewing ex-readers, it might be left up to assumption as to what caused it. It could be seasonal, it could be the storyline, as I seem to recall he dropped Saturday updates around that time as well, which could also explain a decrease in traffic, don't you think? I'm not saying that the traffic is OR, just that assigning a reason to it may be.--Thrindel (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point, although just the fact that the site traffic has dropped significantly might warrant mention. But, like you said, we'll cross that bridge when (if) we come to it. Artichoker^[talk] 21:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:COIN

Several editors of this page have few, if any, constructive edits on any other page on the wikipedia, despite years-long edit histories. (I'm not counting reverting vandalism seen on the recent changes page.) With this in mind, it would not be overly hasty to suggest bringing this article up on the wikipedia:conflict of interest noticeboard. - 68.79.25.247 (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Can someone either beef it up or get rid of it? Seems like everyone these days is desperate to get Yahtzee's opinion on wikipedia. Crazy (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the criticism section could be removed, as there is not going to be a lot there. Artichoker^[talk] 13:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's give it a few days, see if anyone can come up with anything more substantial to add to it, and if not, we can remove it.--Thrindel (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the whole section could do with expanding, not deleting. There's lots of criticism of CAD and Buckley out there on the net, Yahtzee is just the tip of the iceberg. I'd very much like to work on it, but the article is protected at the moment. :S --129.67.162.133 (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You should create an account, and after a few days and some constructive edits, you should be able to edit this page. Artichoker^[talk] 13:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it does seem to ignore the obvious criticism that exists on the internet as a whole. The fact of whether it is deserved or not does not matter, but issues such as the famous 'miscarriage' comic have attracted criticism. 82.38.154.235 (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can find some reliable sources for that criticism, post it here, and I will add it to the article. Artichoker^[talk] 13:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I remember there actually being a longer criticism section involving that the comic was very similar to the comic Penny Arcade which had been around for years already. ... In fact I remember one time even reading a comic of CAD that used the exact same joke PA used a few days earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.191.134 (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked it up. It was two sentences and entirely original research, which is probably why it was removed.--Thrindel (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

there's criticism here, http://explosm.net/comics/1310/ and here http://vgcats.com/cadaprilfools/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razerblader (talk • contribs) 22:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, those are parodies. The Explosm comic... well I don't even know what that's supposed to be. It's just a panel-by-panel recreation of a CAD comic. The VGCats parody was "all in good fun.--Thrindel (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• The Criticism section must stay, if for no other reason than to have a sourced, non-POV place for it. Buckley has a reputation for brooking no criticism of his work whatsoever on the CAD forums, and backs it up with bans and deletions. Sanitizing this page as well should not be tolerated. DarkAudit (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. And I'm pretty sure there is more criticism of CAD out there that would be notable for addition. I'll try to find some. Artichoker^[talk] 00:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(link removed) A somewhat harsh yet vocal source of critism (Swap the @ for a).

Encyclopedia Dramatica and forums are not reliable sources. So they cannot be used. Artichoker^[talk] 01:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Artichoker, there has been a discussion on the IP address (is now archived). An administrator weighed in and since there is zero evidence to connect that IP address with Buckley, it doesn't belong here as per BLP (see SGGH's comments partway down the section). Additionally 74.63.84.69, it is not alright to post material that violates WP:BLP "just because it's on the talk page". It needs to be removed regardless of where it is posted. Really, is it at all possible that we can not go through all of this again? Just because there is a criticism section in the article now does not suddenly make all of these "sources" suddenly valid.--Thrindel (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• VALID sources. Certain forums are full of hate for Buckley. That's not criticism, that's venom. Unacceptable. DarkAudit (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Explosm comic uses a direct quotation from Buckley, I forgot to mention that the criticism is under the artists's blogs and comic description. and isn't this (link removed) a valuable source of information, though I see this has been noted before, the problem with finding sources is that he's not popular enough to warrant mainstream media attention, currently only fellow webcomic artists and bloggers are bashing him, and that does not fall under WP standards.Razerblader (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Blogs, forums and personal websites are not proper sources, correct. The webcomic genre as a whole is not notable enough to develop a large pool of mainstream positive or negative press, with only a couple of exceptions. It's why the article is best left as basic information, instead of trying to shoehorn every minority viewpoint in. I've removed the link from your comment, you know why.--Thrindel (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but that's bull. The very nature of this article (Being about a webcomic) means that most of the criticisms are going to come from web related sources such as other webcomics news pages, comics themselves, blogs and that'll be about it. This is the nature of webcomics and I think we should be allowed to use the primary form of webcomic review as a source for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.68.193 (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen what passes for "criticism" on some of these forums? It's no more acceptable here than Buckley and his minions sanitizing the page. That said, a reliable source needs to be found for the way the CAD forums are run. All we have to go on is anecdotal evidence of the bannings and deletions when buckley is criticized even in the slightest. DarkAudit (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I was slightly wrong. They didn't use the same joke a few days later, it was two months later. In both comics someone is talking to an eye from the game Eye of Judgement and it basically insults them mercilessly. It's done a little differently, but in both it's the exact same premise and joke.

    http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/8/24/
    http://cad-comic.com/comic.php?d=20071024

You decide on the originality now. 99.240.191.134 (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not up to us to decide on stuff like that when determining encyclopedic content.--Thrindel (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a hard leap to make that something with the word judgement in its name might be played upon as being judgemental by two different people and the comics are of reasonable difference. Plus, as stated above, we are not here to decide the issues surrounding a topic, only to record them. - Kuzain (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A reason for the possible lack of "sources" (at least on the CAD forums) of criticism may be down to the fact that Tim Buckley bans anyone on his forums, and deletes all traces of negativity, whenever someone dares post a hint of it. It's also notible that the www.cad-forums.com are still down following numerous incidents that accumulated in this manner, only some relating to things about Tim personally. Given that CAD is a gaming related subject, surely the sources of gaming forums can be considered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.63.84.101 (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Any type of forum is never considered a reliable source, regardless. Artichoker^[talk] 18:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The forums appear to be down for server maintenance [5] (fifth post down, as well as the front page today). Do you have some sort of evidence to the contrary? If not, I would ask you stop assigning your assumptions to things like this, which is the core problem of this whole issue and how these rumors get started. People don't seem to care about looking for facts or evidence to back anything up, they're only interested in the tabloid headlines they come up with for any given situation. It's one thing to debate actual facts here, it's entirely another to have to repeatedly point out the gaping holes in these accusations where facts should be.--Thrindel (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Rapscallions incident is well documented, as is the venom going both ways between Buckley and Kurtz & Straub. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that he *does* take an iron-fisted approach to the CAD forums. Enough to discuss on a talk page, at least. DarkAudit (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually have some criticism, but this being semi protected prevents me from editing it in. I'd like somebody to give this article a once over and see if it would be OK (it does have some strong language and is, like all criticism, mostly an opinion), but it is DEFINATLY criticism of CAD. http://badwebcomics.blogspot.com/2007/06/ctrlaltdel.htmlMilskidasith (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That link you provided is a blog, and therefore is not a reliable source. Artichoker^[talk] 18:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't get why blogs can't be considered reliable sources for sections that are based on opinion, IE a criticism section. Sure, I wouldn't link to blogs for facts, but it is a section for criticism of the comic, after all. The primary criticisms are going to come from popular blogs and webshows like ZP.Milskidasith (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just found an entire non blog, non encyclopedia dramatica, non forum, non urbandictionary site dedicated to criticizing CAD (similar to Ebaumsworldsucks, which I beleive was actually left in the wikipedia article for ebaumsworld). http://www.cadsucks.com/about.php Milskidasith (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's a non blog, non forum post, but those arent the only requirements for a valid source. It is still a WP:SPS and not likely WP:NPOV And please refrain from posting any improper sources that contain accusations of illegal activities. The other blog and forum posts may be completely innapropriate sources, but I'm fine with leaving them here so that others know they are innapropriate and not to keep reposting them. However, involving criminal allegations, this is an extremely serious matter, and you need to be absolutely positive that you have verifiable proof before you start throwing that stuff around. And none of this "I heard from someone who heard from someone" stuff comes even close to being good enough.--Thrindel (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite see how it could possibly break the standards for a neutral point of view. In fact, leaving out criticism of the webcomic, if found, could be considered a non-neutral point of view because it doesn't give representations to both soides of the coin.Milskidasith (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The site you posted will always have a negative point of view of CAD, there for making it NPOV and unreliable, not counting other reasons. However, if we can find some reliable sourcing for criticism of CAD, then it should be added to the article. Artichoker^[talk] 22:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

These policies are in place to prevent Wikipedia articles from becoming a mess of "Oh, people don't like this band/tv show/movie/comic/town/city/school/whatever". There is no doubt in my mind that there are people out there that dislike the comic, for any number of various reasons. But it's just not... important to the basic facts of an encyclopedia article. It's not a NPOV violation to leave criticism out of the article if no notable criticisms exist, because the article doesn't feature any form of praise either. We've combed over the language of the article and removed anything that might be considered non-neutral language to one side or the other. There is no "CAD is a comic, and it's so hilarious and loved by many" content in this article. It's just "CAD is a comic." Straight information.

Everyone has an opinion, but in order for their opinion to be notable in a context like this, they have to have some credentials in the field they are critiquing, and they have to be published by third party sources. This is because anyone can say anything they want on the internet, anonymously and practically without fear of reprisals, and that's just not the kind of information that should be in an informative article. It's not enough to just say "these people don't like this thing for this reason", there has to be a reason why that opinion should matter in the scope of the article.

Just as you can find two-handfuls of blogs and forum posts written by people who hate the comic, I don't doubt that we could go out and find just as many by people that love the comic. So by your reasoning, we should throw all of those opinions into the article as well, and then it just becomes a giant mess and we've strayed from the attempt to present some informative facts about a subject.

As I said earlier, that there is a "criticism" heading in the article now is not an invitation to open the floodgates for every Tom Dick and Harry's personal opinions on the subject (Unless Tom Dick and Harry happen to be art critics for magazines or newspapers or whatever, in which case bring on the sources). The source from Zero Punctuation just barely meets requirements by the skin of its teeth, maybe. It could be argued that while Yahtzee is an established critic, he's established as an expert on video game critique, not comics. However let's say for the sake of arguments that he's established as a critic, and though it's video games, CAD falls under it because it's a gaming related strip. Ok good. Next up is the actual criticism video itself, which is fairly vague in any of its criticism on specific subjects. CAD was clearly referenced, but there were a lot of very generic statements in there. It's not like he sat down and made a video directed at CAD. To use an analogy, it's sort of like a food critic saying "Steak is awful when it is cooked well-done", and then adding the critic's statements to a restaurant just because it serves steak. But aaaaanyway...

Barring those two things, we still run into WP:UNDUE. I'm happy to leave the heading there for a while, to see if people come with some more proper sources, but if not, all we're left with is one person's opinion. It may be an opinion shared by many, but if it was a notable opinion shared by many, you probably wouldn't have any trouble coming up with sources. And so, as far as looking at the opinion from a WP:V standpoint goes, we have one person's opinion, which is then a minority viewpoint, which doesn't belong in the article.

These are the reasons why the article hasn't had a criticism section. Not because there are no criticisms of the comic, undeniably there are. It's because the comic isn't notable enough to generate praise or criticisms in the circles of media that would produce nice solid sources. Right now pretty much all we have is a bunch of people saying "I like the comic!" and another bunch saying "I hate the comic", and from a encyclopedic standpoint the response is a big "who cares?".--Thrindel (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• • The problem is, there is enough anecdotal evidence to support the notion that Buckley or his minions watch this page, and remove any whiff of bad press. There is also anecdotal evidence that Buckley or those associated with him have come onto Wikipedia to vandalize pages of other artists who Buckley has disagreements with, like PvP. The bad blood between Buckley and Kurtz & Straub is well known. I may have personal reasons to dislike Buckley (I've never met him myself, but guildmates were involved in the Rapscallions incident), but that does not mean I cannot be objective when it comes to this article. it's important to have this section, and to have it conform to established Wikipedia guidelines. Swinging too far in either direction is bad. Too much hate, and it's vandalism. Removing the section on spurious grounds is also vandalism, as it raises suspicions that the article is bring sanitized again. DarkAudit (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I added some of the criticism that I know of, with as best sourcing as I could give. With a little more research I should be able to find non-forum post sources that the CAD fanboys will accept. One major problem is that Wikipedia's sourcing policies do not really apply very well here. Most of the people bringing up these issues are doing so on blogs and forums. KiTA (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If you had taken a moment to skim this talk page, you might have saved yourself some time. If you find proper, notable, verifiable sources in your research though, definitely bring them here to be discussed.--Thrindel (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody at least fix the Yahtzee reference to note that he talked about a comic named "Bontrol-Bolt-Belete" and not "Bontrol-Bat-Belete?" 75.175.11.251 (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Thrindel (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how claiming that one IP address that traces to a city with a population of 124,000 people can exactly and verifiably be linked to Tim Buckley. This exact same information was removed and was deemed not verifiable to be included in the article 11 months ago by an administrator. Knowledgeum (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Artichoker: FullyRamblomatic is Yahtzee's personal blog. Whereas Zero Punctuation could be argued a third party source, as it seems he's employed by The Escapist for it, his blog is just a personal website. If you really want to reference his blog, shall we take into account this quote from his latest entry, in which he clearly states his video on webcomics was directed at no comic in particular?

"Just to prove that I am never one to discount pettiness and passive-aggressiveness from my many, many flaws, I devoted this week's video to ragging on irritating popular trends in gaming-themed webcomics. The problems are so endemic that I felt no need to name any actual names, so as I say at the end, if you happen to think I might be referring to any specific comic, that says more about your own feelings about it than mine."

The VGCats parody may be criticism, it may not be. Scott said it was just friendly ribbing. Still, I don't think one parody comic counts as evidence of a "common criticism". The most we could say in the article is "VGCats did an April Fools parody of CAD". You can't assign meaning or explanations to it beyond face value.--Thrindel (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It should be mentioned that VGCats did do a parody of CAD, so I will put that in the article. Also, for future reference, comment on the talk page before reverting. Thanks, Artichoker^[talk] 22:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. It would probably be a good idea to reference that it was an April Fools joke, and according to Ramsoomair, not malicious in intention. And I'm not sure it belongs under the criticism heading.--Thrindel (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it belongs under the Criticism heading, as it was parodying an alleged fault of CAD. Artichoker^[talk] 23:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)::

It's an alleged fault now? You can't do that, man. You can't say "This is what Ramsoomair intended to be criticizing" without a source where he says it was his intention. It doesn't belong under criticism because it was an April Fools gag, and one that the artist stated was "all in good fun". Without that, perhaps we could surmise that he was intending to criticize CAD on these counts. But for all we know, we just just playing off of the complaints that readers have about CAD. You can't assume Ramsoomair's intentions. As I said earlier, the most that should be there is "VGCats did an april fools parody of CAD", in a very factual, straightforward language. It's not up to us to decide whether the parody was criticism, and if so, criticism of what exactly.--Thrindel (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The more I look at it and think on it, without a clear cut intention of criticism over a simple parody (humorous or satirical imitation, not always hand in hand with criticism), it's just trivia, which the article doesn't need. Find us a good source that explains the "bee arrow you" thing as a criticism of CAD, and we can use the VGCats parody as corroborating evidence of the criticism's existence. The parody itself doesn't do a sufficient job explaining it on its own.--Thrindel (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it amusing that in a series of 7 small edits you removed every single edit that I made to the article. I have reverted the latest one, the April Fools from VG Cats, and will be looking at the other ones (particularly the Yahtzee blog one) in a second. KiTA (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have re-added the Yahtzee website/blog reference, and reworded it, removing the quotes. An artist having a stagnant art style is a very, very common criticism, and I see no reason as to why people openly referencing it should not be mentioned here. Ditto with the B^U April Fools joke, even if it was "playful ribbing", it references an extremely common criticism of the comic -- namely, that the artist uses the Keanu Reeves style facial expression denoted by "B^U" very, very often -- to the point that it has become a meme or slang term related to the comic. KiTA (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

They were removed because A) They're not appropriate sources and B) They've all been brought up already on this very page and I and others have given examples why they are not appropriate. A blog is not a source that will fly here. If the 'bee you' thing is extremely common criticism, then find a good source that explains what it is and why. The comic you're linking does not, and you inserting an explanation for it is original research.--Thrindel (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As Artichoker has pointed out, this is turning into an edit war. Perhaps it would be a good idea to seek a arbitration on the matter before this escalates further.--Thrindel (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I think we're fine right now Big T, as long as you don't nickle-and-dime the entire criticism section away again. As for the blog, referencing that his video was an updated (and slightly toned down) version of his criticism of Buckley on his blog is noteworthy information, and should go into the article. Journals and self-published works are a valid source IF the person working on them also has other published content -- in this case, Yahtzee's blog is a valid source because it offers another look at his popular video series' content. In addition, the criticisms that Yahtzee brings up in the blog post but does not focus on in the video -- namely, that Buckley's art style does not evolve (while his art blog shows he is very, very capable of drawing more complex works) and that Buckley does not have a grasp on webcomic punchline timing -- are very common criticisms, but again, due to the culture around Webcomics, most of these critiques are posted on blogs and forums, which are not valid. KiTA (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

From WP:SPS: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Yahtzee is not an established critic in the field of art or webcomics.

It also mentions that Self published sources can at no time be used as third party sources about living people.

Additionally, I refer you to the quote I posted early taken from Yahtzee's latest blog, in which he specifically states he was targeting no webcomic specifically with the video. So if you want to include his blog as a reference, that sort of negates the "this video is a criticism of CAD" aspect. And without that video (being the third party source) his blog once again becomes just a blog.

Regardless, even with the blog link, it is still the opinion of a single person, and will be removed under WP:UNDUE unless other sources are found.--Thrindel (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think saying that the webcomics video -- especially given his essay on his website about the subject -- is somehow NOT criticism of CAD is intentionally stretching your point well past the breaking point. He was VERY, VERY clearly mocking CAD in the video, and his comment that he wasn't was very obviously meant as yet another attack, which is in his style. KiTA (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that he doesn't include CAD in his opinion of gaming webcomics on a whole, but that's an awful lot of assumption going on, for him to say "I dislike gaming webcomics, I'm not targeting anyone specifically" and then for you to say "that's just his way of making another attack". My point is, CAD reference or not, it still makes it look like a pretty general attack on gaming comics. To re-use my earlier analogy, it's like taking an article on a restaurant, and saying that some food critic's general opinion on steak is relevant just because the restaurant happens to serve steak.--Thrindel (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no it is most certainly NOT. Yahtzee specifically mentions a miscarriage in the video. He specifically mentions walls of dialogue covering up the artwork. Both of these are very specific criticisms towards Ctrl-Alt-Del, even moreso given that he specifically calls CAD out on his website about this and other things. Again, you're stretching things. KiTA (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The miscarriage thing, yes, clearly a specific reference. The text thing could probably be applied to any number of comics, along with most of the criticisms in the video. While it may seem apparent to you that the criticisms apply to CAD, it is important to also recognize that the video is not necessarily directed at CAD. It is unfair to say that "this video is based on Yahtzee's previous CAD rant" because you don't know that for sure. You also can't use language like "this is a 'common' criticism" when you only have one single source.--Thrindel (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion A request was made for a WP:Third Opinion. However, more than two editors are involved in the dispute as I understand it, so I have removed the request. Please try other options in WP:DISPUTE. Thanks. -Colfer2 (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted the criticism section's sanitation by Thrindel. Again. The VG Cats Reference is NOT original research. Would anyone like to help me find a reference to the "wall of text" criticism that will pass the policy-wonking of the SPA accounts trying to keep any criticism of the comic/artist off the page? As we cannot use forum quotes nor blog quotes, despite forums and blogs being so central to the topic, how about references in other comics? I seem to remember PVP having a comic about Ladybugs after CAD was accused of stealing the "scorpions in a box" gag, for example. KiTA (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded and reworded slightly the Fully Ramblomatic part of the criticism page. Thrindel has a point, however tortured and strained, that we cannot link the essay talking about Video Game Webcomics (wherein Yahtzee specifically mentions CAD by the parody name "Bontrol+Bolt+Belete") to a previous essay by Yahtzee on the same topic. However, that does not make for a good excuse to remove the entire reference -- the essay on his website is still criticism of CAD and belongs in the article, particularly as it covers the 3 major criticisms I hear referenced to CAD -- that is, the overuse of dialogue (aka the "Wall of Text"), the failure of comedic pacing (Punch line in the first frame, 3 frames explaining the joke), and the unchanging art style (B^U). These criticisms are very common on websites we cannot use as sources due to them being blogs or forum posts, making Yahtzee's essay all the more valuable as a source. KiTA (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, how can you not call it WP:NOR? We have an april fools comic which is clearly a parody of CAD. That's not OR, and nobody ever said it was. What is OR, however, is taking that comic as the sole source of the criticism and adding "The title, Bee Up Arrow You, is in reference to a popular meme describing a popular facial structure that CAD characters have, which is titled B^U." Because that description explaining the 'meme" is found nowhere in the comic strip or in any newsposts by the artist. So since it's not being pulled from an actual verifiable source, it is "speculation" or an "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position", as defined by WP:NOR. It very well be what the 'meme' means, but "it's common knowledge" is not good enough source to prove it. If the source you're providing (in this case the comic) doesn't explain the content on its own, you can't add your own interpretation or description to make it notable to the article.--Thrindel (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that we had to revert a few thousand "B^U"s on this very talk page today, I think saying that defining "Bee Up Arrow You" is "original research" is a HUGE stretch. It is a very, very common criticism of CAD and Buckley -- heck, people on forums have even taken to calling him "B^Uckley".

Not that we can actually mention that in the article, as the policies forbid it. But seriously, just because you've found a nice combination of Wikipedia policies that somehow invalidate 99.999% of all criticism of CAD and should not apply to this particular situation does not mean that the criticism does not exist. I mean seriously, what do I have to do, request the author of PVP or Zero Punctuation or VGCats or heck, even SomethingAwful or something put up an essay, rant or video someplace outside of their forums explaining what "B^U" means, and that yes, Buckley is really wordy, can't tell a joke, etc etc?

On a lighter note, I finally found this BadWebComics essay on CAD. Does it warrant a reference in the article? It contains much of the same criticism as the Yahtzee essay -- minus the dead baby storyline -- but is much more crude and "in your face". But on the plus side, it has a direct URL we can refer to. KiTA (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a blog, SPS, written by nobody with any published third party credentials or expertise, so no.

I've never said that criticism doesn't exist. But you need to keep in mind that this an encyclopedia, a source for fact. The policies I've "found" are in place to prevent people from saying whatever they want in these articles, including expressing personal opinion. It is not our job to create information, only to find sources from people with established fact-finding credentials to construct an article of fact. I'm not asking you to source something that is clearly common knowledge, like "humans breath oxygen", which would be overboard with the policy. If this is something you can't source properly because it is only found on personal blogs and internet forums, then that's probably a clear cut sign that it doesn't belong in the article until you can properly source it.

Criticism is not fact, it is opinion. Opinions can only be presented in the article in the context that it is fact that someone of note has this opinion. For example, you can't say "Cucumbers are disgusting" in an article and then source to some food critic saying that. The article needs to read "Critic X thinks cucumbers are disgusting" with the source following. You don't have a source from the artist of VGCats where he expresses his opinion. You can't know what the purpose of that comic was, directed criticism or friendly ribbing. And it doesn't tell us what "beeyou" is. That's why what is in the article right now is original research. Because it's information you're telling us, not information VGCats is telling us.

Opinions of people that have not been published by third party sources do not count here. It doesn't matter if we had to revert a million "beeyous" a day, "it's common knowledge" doesn't fly here.--Thrindel (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to shift gears a bit, but the language regarding the Ctrl Alt Del reference in the Mass Effect review should be revisited. Previously it said "...comparing the game's abundance of dialogue to that of the webcomic." This was changed to "...that of webcomics". I understand the reason for the change, but I think the edit is a leap to the other extreme. The dialogue spoken at that point refers to "a lot of webcomic authors". Changing the language to "...that of certain webcomics" is a fair compromise (as well as a more accurate characterization). Pxlt (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Would "some webcomics" or "a lot of webcomics" be as acceptable? I agree that "that of webcomics" is too broad a statement (my edit originally, I believe, to pluralize to reflect his spoken dialogue), but "certain webcomics" still feels too narrow, like Yahtzee had compiled a list of them, rather than making generalizations.--Thrindel (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, no issues with that. Done. Pxlt (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed the Yahtzee paragraph around a bit to reflect the correct chronology (it looks like the Mass Effect review was first, then the blog post, then finally the webcomic episode). Also tried to fix some language issues (e.g. comic strips cannot refuse to change their style, but authors can!). Pxlt (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The "Cyanide and Happiness" CAD parody should be included in this section. (http://www.explosm.net/comics/1310/) This was originally proposed, but Thrindel responded calling it "a panel-by-panel recreation of a CAD comic" and no one really called her/him on it. Stating the obvious, the first 4 of 6 panels are a recreation of a CAD comic, and finally some text from Buckley's accompanying news post is used as a character's actual dialogue. Determining exactly what the author is trying to say is a bit subjective, but the juxtaposition of comic and news post to make clear the subject matter's absurdity in the context of the webcomic is obvious. Pxlt (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a notable source of criticism. It's just a parody. It's also from a self-published source that is not also an established expert on comic/art criticism that has been published by a third party. The comic doesn't make any clear criticisms of CAD, so short of making an WP:OR interpretation of intent, the only fact is "Comic X made a parody of Comic Y", and how would you deem that at notable to this article? That some other comic didn't like one of the storylines? Big deal. It wouldn't stand on its own, so it doesn't stand just because there's a criticism section in the article now.

This criticism section is being cobbled together around one single proper source (the yahtzee video), which no matter how much people expand the paragraph with language about his opinion, it is still a single person's opinion, and a minority viewpoint from a WP:UNDUE standpoint. The VGCats comic is also an interpretive SPS that remains in the article in the hopes that someone can come up with a proper secondary source for the beeyou title, but barring that interpretive language it's still "Comic X made a parody of Comic Y" from a non-expert with no published opinions on the topic.--Thrindel (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thrindel, I know you'd love to get rid of the criticism section due to WP: Undue, but considering there is no expert praise for CAD you cannot call any correctly sourced criticism a minority viewpoint (VG cats comic is a maybe, but Yahtzee is what I'd consider an expert based on wikipedia standards, since he did have his own webcomic). WP:Undue is all about giving undue weight to minority opinions, and criticism of CAD cannot be considered a minority viewpoint unless you can get expert praise of CAD.Milskidasith (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps reread Undue Weight then. "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." If all of the proper sources in the section point to a single man's opinion, no matter how many different places he stated it, you wouldn't call one person an extremely small minority viewpoint? I think Wikipedia would.--Thrindel (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You're kind of misinterpreting what you quoted-- the important part is how widely a viewpoint is held among reliable or expert sources. And since we are very clear now on how few legitimate sources there are for webcomic opinions (thanks in part to your diligence), the natural conclusion might be that most, if not all, reliable sources think CAD is one of the worst examples of the genre. If so, then Wikipedia should certainly reflect this reality, unless you can find reliable sources that offer an opposing viewpoint and/or evidence that Yahtzee's opinion is a minority one.

Put another way, "if all of the proper sources in the section point to a single man's opinion", then that isn't necessarily evidence of a minority viewpoint, it simply means in this case that the editors need to find additional reliable sources. Pxlt (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If it were a significant viewpoint, I don't think that it would be so difficult to track down prominent adherants of said viewpoint.--Thrindel (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a simple proof, Thrindel... If it's such an insignificant viewpoint, there must be tons of experts praising CAD, right? Wrong. Also, there are quite a few examples of apparant criticism, from friendly ribbing (see the previously posted VGcats and Cyanide and Happiness comics) and pure criticism (You can find examples on the PvP forum), which, although not on pages we can source, is pretty good proof that there is criticism of CAD in the circles of webcomic artists. I don't have anything against CAD personally, but I want the majority expert view given proper weight... and that happens to be dislike of CAD.Milskidasith (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Lack of other sources is not "proof" that this guy's opinion is significant, Milskidasith. Yahtzee himself is not even an "expert" critic of this medium. That he had a webcomic at one point means nothing, everyone and their grandmother on the internet has had a webcomic these days. Yahtzee made a name for himself as a critic of video games, that is what got him published by a third party. That he's a video game critic and CAD writes about video games is a weak link to tie the two together. That he did an episode on webcomics isn't much better. That's like a movie critic writing one column about a restaurant he disliked. It doesn't make him an expert food critic. In all likelihood, we'll never see another Zero Punctuation on webcomics.

I have no problem with criticism being noted as long as it's significant, properly sources and goes towards improving the overall article. WP:UNDUE isn't just about undue weight to the individual sources, it's also about undue weight in their relation to the entire article. What we have here is a criticism section from someone who isn't even an expert on the subject, that is bloated and more in-depth than any other single section of the article. That is undue weight right there. Ignoring whether or not the man's opinion should be in the article at all, it is certainly not an important enough opinion to warrant that much exploration in the article. We're coming up on 3-4 weeks here with no corroborative sources, so even if it stays in the article, it really should be trimmed down so it better reflects its importance in relation to the article as a whole, which it currently does not.--Thrindel (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You kind of forgot, in terms of Yahtzee's significance, that he wrote his own webcomic. Anyway, maybe it is a little bloated, but then again, maybe it's not. I mean, the rest of the article pretty much only comes from one individual source (namely, the actual site of Ctrl-alt-del) so it isn't like the criticism section being large is that undue. Maybe it could be trimmed a little, but considering the relative scarcity of sources for anything else in the article, it can't be blamed on the number of sources.Milskidasith (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't forget, see my first paragraph. Also since this is an article about CtrlAltDel, sources from CtrlAltDel are perfectly acceptable for citing information directly relating to the comic/website. And even then there is a lot of stuff we could include, that we don't, in the interest of keeping this article's size and length commensurate with its perceived notability (ie, slim, direct and to the point). You don't need third party sources for the majority of this article's first-party content (such as "Ethan is a character in the comic" etc).--Thrindel (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, in news more related to the actual criticism section, I found another criticism that, I'm pretty sure, follows wikipedia regulations. http://refried.timtekindustries.com/index.php?comicID=58

It's a self-published website, and not one that is self-published by any (as far as I can tell) kind of recognized webcomic expert. As I pointed out earlier in regards to Yahtzee, simply having a webcomic does not make someone an expert on the subject, nor make their opinion notable. The same way cooking dinner at your house does not make you an expert chef.--Thrindel (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How are you ever going to find online criticism if you just dismiss everything because an individual published it? If its fair and backs up its arguments it is a VALID source. 82.38.154.235 (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because something might seem fair doesnt make it a valid source, especialy if it violates BLP policy. Knowledgeum (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been four weeks and no (notable) corroborating sources have been found for the 'internet meme' in the VGCats comic. I'm going to remove it until additional sources come about, and also try to simplify the section on Yahtzee's opinion so that it falls more in line with its overall importance to the article, for the reasons I've outlined above.--Thrindel (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in knowing how it is that you justify removing statements that someone is a critic of the comic. It certainly seems sourced and that does not really fit well with the claim that you are doing it to fit the overall importance to the article. This is especially true in light of the fact that there is significant evidence to suggest you are quite involved in the material this article covers and raises ethical concerns regarding non-fact oriented edits made by you. Everyone may edit Wikipedia and a person should not be discouraged from correcting errors in an article just because it is about them or something close to them but that person should certainly be more careful in where they make their edits and stylistic ones like these are certainly troubling to many. I will wait for your response but intend to place the section back the way it was afterwards until or unless you more clearly outline why you feel the individual changes you have made contribute to the article. - Kuzain (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please show us this evidence (that is not some forum post, or anonymous comment on a website) that you have linking Thrindel to Tim Buckley. You must assume good faith while on wikipedia, and accusing another user of a COI with no suporting evidence is hardly good faith. As per WP:COI: "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban." "Great care must be taken to neither go to the one extreme of allowing biased articles due to over-weighing the importance of allowing editors to edit pseudonymous; nor to the other extreme of allowing claims of conflict of interest to be used as a weapon that wins edit wars by essentially threatening to "out" another editor." Knowledgeum (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

My evidence is my own and not appropriate here but does rule out good faith when stating it. I am not using it to harass him nor to argue that he should be prevented from editing the page since the evidence is not to be placed here but suggesting that the edits not be made. When help is asked for, you may do so but quoting unrelated policy is not going to help here. I have not given a great deal of attention to this reply and responses to it are best made on my talk page. - Kuzain (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring your completely innapropriate and unfounded COI accusations, I feel like I've explained my reasoning at least six times on this page, but I will do so once again.

1) The 'internet meme', it was unsourced. I added a citation tag to the line and waited four weeks. No proper sources were produced. So that was removed. It can always be put back in if a good source for its use can be found.

2) So after that we're left with a big paragraph of Yahtzhee's opinion. This paragraph explaining his opinion is larger than any other section of the artice. Neither CtrlAltDel nor Yahtzee are so very important that this article needs a giant section devoted to what one guy thinks of it. Whether a video game critic's opinion of a webcomic is important at all, I'm not entirely convinced yet, however it does at least have some proper sources, so it can stay while other notable sources are sought.

However, a lot of us have spent time trimming the article down from what it used to be (bloated), to bring it more in line with the subject's importance. CAD is not the most important or notable webcomic out there, and it is not the least important. It warrants an article, but not as large an article as it might be with all of the stuff we could put in there. So when there's a section that isn't even directly about the comic, it's about what some guy thinks of the comic, and its larger than any other section in the article, something is out of wack.

The primary sources are still intact, the content is still intact, all I did was tighten up the language, and attempt to make things neutral, straightforward and concise.--Thrindel (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have edited to positioning of your comment so that it better reflects the one you were responding to. I do agree with you that the Meme is poorly sourced and that it should be removed by Wikipedia policy. I think this is an issue affecting Memes in general and it is not a personal judgement on this one, since I have seen it and it was sourced although not appropriately. Therefore, I agree that the meme should be removed but more on technicality than lack of validity. Regarding the other edits, I find most of them questionable...especially in regard to my own personal knowledge regarding your COI. My COI issues are direct at you and not accusations in the community. They are suggestions regard the types of edits you should make and not suggestions regarding the types of edits you should be allowed to make. I will make a review of the changes you have made in detail and present my thoughts on your talk page. Some of them, I do agree with and some of them I do not but hashing them out under a huge pile of text is not especially helpful. My primary concern was that both edits were made at the same time and I feel it would have been clearer to have removed the meme, which was unquestionably lacking in proper source, seperately. - Kuzain (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Mike Fahey of Kotaku has said he can no longer stomach the comic since the miscarriage arc: http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2008/07/zero_punctuation_takes_on_ctrlaltdel-2.html -- not sure if that merits addition. 67.160.86.119 (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would it? It's just some guy saying he doesn't like the comic anymore. Since it would never have been notable that he did like the comic, it is not notable that he now doesn't like the comic.--Thrindel (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a quote from an article on a website which appears to be notable (though as I am not a frequent reader nor a scholar on Kotaku I couldn't be certain), which, while it is not a direct criticism of the comic, adds another notable news source to the list of critics. And as it would have been notable if Kotaku had posted an article about CAD I think it's quite fair to say it's notable if they post one where they say they don't like it. At the very least it shows that there is more than one notable source who feels the same way Yahtzee does; that he is not, as it were, in a vacuum of criticism. 67.160.86.119 (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not notable.--Thrindel (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. 76.104.160.75 (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of Thrindel saying, in essence, that an article on CAD is allowed to take positive sources from CAD is, in the context of an encyclopaedia, a laughable concept. Allow me to put it as thus. I create an article on myself, in this article, I make repeated references to my own website to back up points I make. This in itself is laughable. perhaps I am regarded in a niche field, say, music blogging and reviewing music on said blog. Now, if my were absolutely atrocious, but still read by a large volume of people, I would have a large section of the music blogging community critising me on their own blogs. these might be perfectly valid critisisms, however, as they come from a self published source, wiki rules say they can't be used, even though I myself have used my own website as a source. (to put it as Thrindel would;"since this is an article about [my website], sources from [my website] are perfectly acceptable").

Critisism by others who are in the field should be perfectly acceptable, as it constitutes the closest we can get to a work being reviewed by its peers. (Ben Crowshaw included, even though ZP is what he is now known for) either:

• In posts by them on their forums/news sections (note: other forum members do not count)
• Either directly, or through allusion in an established webcomic
• Personal blog posts by webcomic authors critising a particular person in the field's work.

At the very least, if sources cannot be taken from a self-published website, the webcomics main pages included, to provide critical views held by the peer's of the subject of the article, then they should note be allowed to flesh out the article beyond the basics (for webcomics this would be the characters, and any arcs, but anything beyond that, e.g., Penny Arcade's "Child's Play", would have to have information acquired from a different source.)

78.144.33.246 (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:SPS, self-published sources are allowed, in articles about themselves, as long as they meet certain requirements. However the article still needs to establish notability via third-party sources, which this article does. So yes, if you are a music blogger with established notability that can be sourced to third parties, and an article was created about your music blog, certain sources from your music blog could be used. For instance, if we have an article about a notable website that states it updates two days a week, we don't need to find a third-party source that verifies this. Using a source directly from the website (since the article is about the website) is perfectly fine.

The article cannot be based primarily on SPS sources, and SPS sources cannot be used if they make claims about third parties.--Thrindel (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, this entire article needs to be put up on AFD, as it's about a SPS source? KiTA (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No KiTA, it's an article about a subject which, while self-published, has achieved notability that can be sourced to mentions in third party publications. If the only sources in the article were SPS, then we could talk AFD, but they aren't.--Thrindel (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not actually, what I'm proposing would have a much wider impact, and in the views of some, could be seen as slightly radical. what I'm saying is in niche fields, where criticisms would be difficult to find in pages which are not SPS, these sources should be allowed to be used, providing the publisher of the source is notable in his field. For instance, If Randall Munroe of xkcd writes on his "blag" about the faults of CAD, this should be seen as a usable source, as the criticism comes from someone established in the same, or in a similar field and, as I mentioned above, constitutes something similar to the work being reviewed by the peers of the articles subject matter. forum posts by those in a notable position in the field should also be considered, however, those by other members of their forum should not, unless they are also established Webcomic artists and have been proven as being so. this way, we can make sure that an article would be able to portray criticisms from others in the field. This way, we can make sure that articles on many niche fields are much more balanced.

89.241.84.171 (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to argue a change to Wikipedia policy, this is not the place to do it.--Thrindel (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the 'Criticism' section of a page is not to sugar-coat the negative opinions of the content in question. The current section needs serious revision as the ideas spoken out as an honest critique's edges have been dulled and blurred to unacceptable levels. 4N1M3H34D (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the purpose of the Criticism section is to show when someone notable has expressed an opinion which is deemed important to the overall content of the article. The language in the section is not "sugar-coated" just because it doesn't state verbatim any of Yahtzee's insults, which he uses a lot of. The language in the article is neutral, and covers all of the major criticisms he made, and as in-depth as they deserve to be covered, given their overall importance (ie, not very important at all).--Thrindel (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am also referring to the total exclusion of the VG Cats criticism. And I believe it does matter that the ideas of Yahtze's remarks are seriously toned down because "He has some issues with the comic" is not a sufficient description of his remarks. I'm not claiming the article should say "rubbish king" or "on a throne of rotting meat" but he expressed concerns and flaws much more grave than the article suggests. ---4N1M3H34D 24:40 17 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4N1M3H34D (talk • contribs) 20:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Grave flaws"? Really? That seems a little overdramatic. His concerns are listed. The article summarizes Yahtzee's major points in a neutral tone, and sources the original article if anybody really wants to read the full blog post, insults and all. The removal of the VGCats parody has been discussed at length here, if you look you'll see all of the reasons it was not kept.--Thrindel (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It can be argued the miscarriage was used as a way to boost the declining viewer count. The arrow points to the date the miscarriage comic was posted, the graph itself comes from Alexa_Internet.
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/9851/cadtrafficjg2.png.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperAntx (talk • contribs) 00:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It can't be argued that way unless you have some sort of substantial evidence in the form of sources to back it up. Additionally, Alexa rankings are not often perceived to be terribly reliable. I would also point out that on April 16 2008 Alexa introduced a new ranking system, which dramatically shifted the rankings of many websites [6]. You might want to look at mid-April on your little screenshot there. --Thrindel ^Talk 01:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Doing a comparison with other webcomics shows the same decline at the same time [7]. Unless they all had a comic the same week that drove users away you cannot say that any one event is causing traffic declines on one website. Further Buckley had stated on his forums when asked about traffic declines that it always declines going into summer and will pick up again later in the year. You can see a increase in traffic late last year which seems to support his comments. Knowledgeum :  Talk  10:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

removed unsourced allegation Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll add in the arguements from both of our talk pages:

I'll also ask that you look at the Consensus and the Civility articles, in particular definitions of incivility including: "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel"Nilzy (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, and frankly I'm amazed I have to post this, see the Talk Page Guidelines, including "Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you." The policies are not a shield for your motives.

I'm going to add, quoting from the Wikipedia policy page on Administrators: "I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.

I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.

I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing." Having an Administrator agree with you on a topic is not an impenetrable shield to hide behind against debate on the topic, especially so when the debate centers around the inclusion of the article on the talk page.Nilzy (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, I'm asking for proof of the concensus that you, Thrindel, claim to have reached previously on this topic.Nilzy (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken on BLP. BLP is intended, amongst other things, to protect living people from unsourced allegations, including on talk pages. Per wikipedia policy, an allegation which only appears on forums is unsourced. We require reliable sources and forums are not one of them. Talk pages are fine for discussing sourcing issues but as it stands there is nothing to discuss since all we have a forums. If you have other sources please bring them to the table, then we can discuss them. BTW, I should add this is an article on webcomic, not a biography. Random allegations unrelated to the webcomic about the author should not be included in the article anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There are screenshots of Buckley banning people for mentioning it, and one of the evidence being brought up. A screenshot is all that can really be done. There are bloody pictures of the events in question, and all the user names are clear - including buckleys. Do we need a reliable source saying the sky is blue? --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots are not a valid source, and they would again, be screenshots of a forum, which is again not a valid source for anything to do with wikipedia. Screenshots can be altered, would be the highest level of WP:OR, and would probably violate any number of other WP policies in the process.. As Masem stated in his edit summary "...Come back to talk about it when you have an RS (NOT a forum source)." Knowledgeum :  Talk  18:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Other then the good points Masem has already mentioned, screenshots of Buckley banning people prove absolutely nothing of any interest. If I was subject to malicious and untrue allegations I would probably ban people who brought up such bullshit too. (I would probably also sticky a strong denial and warning but of course the absence of that doesn't prove anything.) For us to mention allegations have to be made there needs to be strong evidence those allegations are widespread enough to be notable in other words we need multiple RS (and we don't even have one!) Also there is still no explaination of why on earth this is of any relevance to Ctrl+Alt+Del the webcomic. As I mentioned earlier please remember this is an article on the webcomic not the author. In other words, there are just so many things wrong with this suggestion it's somewhat ludicrious we are even still discussing it Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Daily Sillies

Tim Buckley is now releasing (almost) daily sillies mostly pertainig to just humor, perhaps they should be included in the article. Knowledgeum (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Sillies have been going on for a few days, and he mentioned that they might become a permanent addition. We should wait until they are posted on a permanent location. Buckley has stated that he cannot continue to put them on the news feed. Artichoker^[talk] 18:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

From his latest post it appears they will be a continual thing, located on thier own seperate page once the site is modified. However he states he does not know what to call them so the title of 'Sillies' may be replaced by 'CADMini' or 'CADLite' (presently the images are tagged with 'Lite#####' for the file name. Knowledgeum (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Once everything gets straightened out, we should add a section mentioning whatever-they're-called to this article. Artichoker^[talk] 15:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

They now seem to be "officialy" CAD Sillies, the site has been redesigned to incorperate them here[8] and here[9], however presently they seem to be missing about 1/2 of the actual posted comics as the actualy started on July 2, but sofar the site is only listing comics from July 17 onward. They are also a daily appearance, appearing atleast once a day since July 2. Knowledgeum (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Even saying that, is it particularly notable? It's like a parody of the actual comic, and even then, the humour is practically non-existent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Chain Of Flowers (talk • contribs) 11:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a permanent comic addition to the comic website which this article is about. Yes, it is notable. And whatever you find any humor there is completely irrelevant.--Thrindel ^Talk 18:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Original research

Hey guys. You seem to be removing my additions to the criticism section based on the fact that I used "original research". When I added it a second time, I believe that I removed any original research, as I was no longer citing the forums as a source as I did the first time. Would you care to explain why you are undoing my additions, when all that I am doing is reorganizing the information that is already there? Jerrokun (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You were actually adding new information, such as A recent storyline involving a miscarriage has also been criticized. The abrupt change from humor to drama is seen as a way to generate controversy and gain more viewers. Because of how sensitive the topic was to Tim, the miscarriage based on his own experience[[10]], many critics of the comic made edits to the original comic, ridiculing the event. which is original research because it was never criticized anywhere by a reliable source. This whole paragraph is mostly speculation and unverified claims. Artichoker^[talk] 00:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I'm going to take that part out, and hopefully next time someone will choose not to undo my entire edit but instead remove the part that doesn't belong. Jerrokun (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, hold on. It was criticized by a reliable source. Didn't you notice how that part lead into the part about Yahtzee? There's my source. Jerrokun (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I don't understand. What source are you talking about? Artichoker^[talk] 03:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If I had to venture a random guess, he's probably covering his criticisms with the already cited Yahtzee video/gamespot interview.72.148.112.184 (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I understand now. You can revert to your revision of the article if you want; I'm getting a headache. Artichoker^[talk] 03:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for understanding. Jerrokun (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your addition and rewording of the VGCats paragraph adds excessive OR to a portion that already requires a citation for what little speculation was there.

Your second paragraph is completely OR.

Your rewording of the third paragraph convolutes the simple straightforward wording that was already there, where both actual, verifiable instances of reference and criticism are noted. Please don't embellish the language in a section that is still comprised mostly of a single person's (verified) opinion, and which is teetering on the edge of WP:UNDUE as it is.--Thrindel (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is at least criticism of the B^U face (though not mentioned as such, it is still criticism of the characters faces) in a cited article written by Yahtzee (not the video, the article on his site), so that would be some validation of the actual face. And I wouldn't exactly call him teetering on undue, considering he has written his own webcomics, so he could be called somewhat of an expert on them.Milskidasith (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And his blog entry is already there on the credit of the actual third party published source (Zero Punctuation). If it doesn't mentioned the beeyou meme, it doesn't help. We can't just paste or rewrite his entire blog into the article for every single point he makes. WP:UNDUE has nothing to do with him being an expert in the field or not, that comes into play with WP:SPS. Undue accounts for Undue Weight in the article, as in making sure we don't give undue weight to minority viewpoints. WP:UNDUE is taken from a strictly source-oriented standpoint, it will still amount to the opinion of a single person, thus a minority viewpoint as far as the encyclopedia is concerned.--Thrindel (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a minority viewpoint, considering there isn't ANY kind of public praise for CAD by a source that would be encyclopedia worthy. I'd have to say that plants criticisms of the comic in a (small) majority by default. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milskidasith (talk • contribs) 07:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Y'know Thrindel, I have to say, I really don't like the way you undo my entire edit when only certain parts of it are incorrect. It's really quite retrogressive.

"Your addition and rewording of the VGCats paragraph adds excessive OR to a portion that already requires a citation for what little speculation was there."

Uh, no, it really doesn't. It's an explanation of the B^U face, explaining that it's also a popular meme, citing the VGCats comic as an example of the meme and source for the explanation.

"Your second paragraph is completely OR."

Absolutely not. It was an explanation of the significance of the miscarriage storyline, leading into the part about Yahtzee, which was a legitimate source of the view in the second paragraph. It's quite clear that the two are connected, if you actually bothered to read them.

"Your rewording of the third paragraph convolutes the simple straightforward wording that was already there, where both actual, verifiable instances of reference and criticism are noted. Please don't embellish the language in a section that is still comprised mostly of a single person's (verified) opinion, and which is teetering on the edge of WP:UNDUE as it is."

I did very little to that paragraph in terms of "embellish"ing the language. All that I did was reword it so that it made sense in relation to the second paragraph, since the two are connected. In addition, I mentioned that the miscarriage was included in the video since it was significant considering that Yahtzee is the source for paragraph two. Once more I must stress the importance of actually reading someone's contributions. Jerrokun (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Jerrokun, please take a moment to read WP:NOR. Let me break it down for you.

"The use of a similar facial expression in the majority of comics, illustrated by the emoticon "B^U", is a common complaint. The "B^U" emoticon is used to exaggerate the bored and sarcastic expression on most character's faces in the comic." You don't have any sources from notable critics making either of these points, that A)that is what the meme means that B) its in the "majority of comics" and especially C) that the expressions are considered "bored and sarcastic". This is an elaboration on a description of an internet meme which already had no direct source, and has a "citation needed" tag on it. You're adding more OR language to the paragraph and removing the request for sources.

"A recent storyline involving a miscarriage has also been criticized. The abrupt change from humor to drama is seen as a way to generate controversy and gain more viewers." This is new information/speculation. You have no sources that say this.

"Because of how sensitive the topic was to Tim, the miscarriage based on his own experience[[11]], many critics of the comic made edits to the original comic, ridiculing the event." This is new information/speculation. You have no sources that say this.

"Yahtzee, who has criticized Ctrl+Alt+Delete on several occassions in his videos," We sourced and mentioned the two that we found with CAD mentions. If you have others to constitute "several", please source them.

So since the second paragraph is all OR, and the edit to the third paragraph is unsourced, the rewording of the whole section is unecessary.--Thrindel (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph uses the VGCats comic as a source and example of the meme. For the second paragraph, you are right about the second part, but not the first. The first is absolutely not speculation. It leads into the part about Yahtzee, which also happens to contain the sources for the "second paragraph", which is actually part of the third now. As for the third paragraph, you're just nitpicking so you can say you have something wrong with all 3 sections. Seriously, if using "several" is an issue for you, just change it to "a couple" or "two". Jerrokun (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that you think you're using the sources that are already there, but the information you're adding to the article does not exist in the sources we already have. You're taking a sourced picture of an apple and adding "also, apples cause cancer".--Thrindel (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please give me an example of what doesn't exist within the sources, so that I can remove it, or remove it yourself. Jerrokun (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I already did that.

"The use of a similar facial expression in the majority of comics, illustrated by the emoticon "B^U", is a common complaint." You have one source, a comic strip that you don't even know is intended as a complaint, so it is not a "common complaint". Saying so is your original research.

"The "B^U" emoticon is used to exaggerate the bored and sarcastic expression on most character's faces in the comic. "B^U" is also a popular internet meme." Again, the comic strip says none of this. The comic sports the title "Bee Up Arrow You", and that's the only fact about it. Adding an explanation to what this title is supposed to mean without sources to back it up is Original Research. What was in the article explaining the "meme" was also tagged with a cite request, which you keep removing. It has a cite request because it needs a source to stay in the article at all, it does not need even more OR heaped on top of it in the meantime.

"A recent storyline involving a miscarriage has also been criticized." This is already covered with "references recent storyline events", because all it is is a passing reference. Had he stopped to make actual critique of the storyline, that would be different.

"The abrupt change from humor to drama is seen as a way to generate controversy and gain more viewers." This is said nowhere in any of Yahtzee's material, this is entirely your opinion and original research.

"who has criticized Ctrl+Alt+Delete on several occassions in his videos, included a parody of CAD called "Bontrol+Bolt+Belete" and references recent storyline events, including the miscarriage" He has not criticized the comic on several occasions in his videos. He has, at most, referenced it twice, and both instances are cited and mentioned. And in addition, in the video where he mentions "recent storyline events", the only storyline event mentioned is the miscarriage, so adding "including the miscarriage" at the end is unecessary filler.

Finally, a quote directly from WP:OR, "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

The information you are trying to add is not in any of the sources already cited, and you are not providing any new sources for it.

So I hope that this time you understand what is wrong with these edits, and I hope that we won't see them re-added without some proper citations from notable sources along with them. If you have questions about what constitute proper WP:V sources, feel free to bring them to the talk page for discussion.--Thrindel (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

BLP vios?

Why was the article deleted and recreated repeatedly like that? Did Buckley complain about the article or something, to the point that it required purging of the edit logs? KiTA (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, however if you looked at the edits that were removed they clearly violated the BLP policy and that doesnt require anyone to complain to have them removed. Knowledgeum (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I should have only had to do two deletions, but I kept screwing up and restoring versions I'd previously deleted. But yes, Knowledgeum's explanation is correct. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

does this article still fall under WPBLP? the text itself shows that the author's works are widely spread. - 68.79.22.139 (talk) 05:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If Buckley is still alive then it falls under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Key being living. Knowledgeum :  Talk  17:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section?

Should we include one? 121.221.156.234 (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Lintd

We had one, some assholes just deleted it. And from the looks of it have been attempting to attack anything they even think is the comic creatore, just had a look at Thridels user page and people (most likely 4channers) have been threatening to go to his house. Its pathetic really, ill revert it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.156.234 (talk • contribs)

• What this little genius fails to mention is that he is the one who deleted it. I'm smelling WP:POINT here. JuJube (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• This has the be the lamest attack I have ever seen, perhaps next time he won't try making personal attacks on a site that links all edits to an "account" (even an ip address). I thought this page was suppposedly protected still from these type of attacks. Knowledgeum (talk) 06:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think SarcasticIdealist had intended to reinstate the page protection (according to one of his edit summaries), but it may have gotten undone in the rebuilding of the article.--Thrindel (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. From now on, when I delete and undelete pages, I'm going to read the big letters that say that doing so cancels out any protection. I've reinstated protection now, as I intended. I may be the most inept admin on this site. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

when someone else gets around to this here's one parody for the criticism section http://www.explosm.net/comics/1310/ and the source for the VGcats one http://vgcats.com/cadaprilfools/ Razerblader (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Razerblader, nothing has changed since you brought this up a month ago. Please read the existing discussion. This is a vandal's header.--Thrindel (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I forgot about that, anyways these are parodies, and I would expect them to have been added and labeled appropriately not purged like everything here usually, adding to the list too is http://www.biggercheese.com/ more specifically here http://www.biggercheese.com/0760a.png Razerblader (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are parodies. They're also not notable.--Thrindel (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thrindel, why did you remove so much of the criticism section, while saying you were only removing references to the B^U meme? KiTA (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the actual discussion above, this is a vandal's header not a new discussion on the section. I've stated why, both in the discussion here and my edit summary. I removed the unreferenced meme, and I simplified the section on Yahtzee's opinion because of WP:UNDUE in comparison to its importance as it related to the article as a whole. One video game critic's opinion on the comic is not important enough that it needs a giant paragraph in an article that is otherwise kept trim and concise (due to the fact that the comic is not incredibly important in the first place). The sources are still intact, only the paragraph's footprint on the overall page has been balanced.--Thrindel (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Except when he's the almost the only webcomic reviewer paid by a major publication. - 68.79.22.139 (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

But he isn't a webcomic reviewer.--Thrindel (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If you were arguing that just based on his blog that would work, but once he releases a video he was paid to make reviewing webcomics, he is one. 4N1M3H34D (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Zero Punctuation is a video game review column, it is not a webcomic review column. Making one review does not automaticly make him a webcomic reviewer, it makes him someone with an opinion. If zero punctuation exclusively reviewed webcomics, then we could say that was his job, otherwise he is a video game reviewer that has an opinion on a subject, not an expert in webcomic revews. Knowledgeum :  Talk  17:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:LUC 65.118.44.226 (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and Yahtzee pretty much has criticisms of everything. Don't see a criticism section on Soul Calibur 4, now do we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.104.195 (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a "criticism" section, but there is a "reception" section, which is common to almost all game, movie, and book articles 70.71.69.224 (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't it called the criticism section?

300,000 hits a day

Should this information stay? It is, after all, three years old... Does anyone have a more recent number/source? A. Smith (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe sources go "stale". IE, there's no time limit. It should certainly be updated if possible, though.--Thrindel (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This website [12] seems to be giving an estimate of 335,570 daily page view as of today. They appear to take data from alexa but I am uncertain on how sourcable this would be. Knowledgeum :  Talk  23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, time to drag this up again. There's no particular reason to have this on the page, and it seems a ludicrously high figure at that. Furthermore, I've done my damndest to locate this info anywhere outside of the source newspaper and can't find it. The newspaper archives show a snippet of the article in question but make no mention of either author or product at all. Also, keying in the above linked site provided some very suspect and varied answers for different websites. If anyone could find a better source for this it would be much appreciated, otherwise I see no point in it staying here.Nilzy (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can find a source to contradict this information, your suspicion of its accuracy isn't a good enough reason to remove what appears to be a properly sourced bit of information. If you'd prefer an internet source, we could swap it out with the statistic of '1.6 million unique users per month', as found on the website of the company [13] that seems to manage their advertising. Either way, it's tough to find sources for a website's traffic, but when you can, it's a good way to show the relative size of a website. And since this is an article about a website, it's pertinent. --Thrindel ^Talk 20:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It's three year old data that is suspect of being false. It's not for anyone to prove it isn't valid, it is for you to prove it is. I'm asking you to do so. I don't mind replacing it with the newer data, although Blind Ferret mightn't be the most reliable source considering their relationship with the website.Nilzy (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Suspect of being false by who? You? It's information sourced to a newspaper article. There's no expiration date on information. If it can be updated, it should be, but it doesn't need to be automatically removed because it can't be updated. And why wouldn't the advertising website be reliable? It's a third party source. Do you think they're lying? On what basis?--Thrindel ^Talk 21:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Great work guys. Thanks for figuring this one out. Just so you know more people ride horses to the grocery store than take their car. Doesnt matter than this info is from 1894, I can cite a valid refernece! --The Lone Bard (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

CAD Sillies

CAD Sillies section is just advertising —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.44.226 (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Then make some suggestions on how to improve it. Knowledgeum :  Talk  21:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.249.85 (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is to provide information about the webcomic, not advertise each new addition. What's next, updating the page for each comic?65.118.44.226 (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And the section is not advertising each new comic, nor is it "advertising" at all. It's a mention of what appears to be a new permanent feature of the website, and a comic feature at that. This article is about the comic, and so a mention of a regularly appearing spinoff is perfectly acceptable in the article.--Thrindel (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a mention of it is fine, but a whole section? I don't think it's that notable. I agree with 65.118.44.226. Zell65 (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I Agree with Zell65 on this. Perhaps a mention in the headlining paragraph would be sufficient? --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an offshoot or a side product of the website, just as the animated series or books. The section is brief and to the point.--Thrindel ^Talk 11:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not have a section for the authors blog then? or the forums? or the FAQ? It doesn't warrant it's own section. A brief summary in the headlining paragraph is more than enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Chain Of Flowers (talk • contribs) 12:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the blog has nothing to do with the comic, the sillies are a comic. You better go to the VGcats article and do the same for the same section there aswell under your reasoning. Undervalueing a new permanent feature of the "franchise" with a one line mention that is out of place in the header doesnt work. I suggest if you don't like the idea then we seek arbitration. Knowledgeum :  Talk  17:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

I think this section is pretty small given how much it's talked about across the internet. I guess I shouldn't be surprised given the edit wars this page seems to involved in, a lot of which seem(to me) to be involving Thrindel. Zell65 (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:JuJube and User:Thrindel seem to really like reverting this sentence I added to the Criticism section...

This same overuse of dialogue has been referenced by Encyclopedia Dramatica's "CAD Rule", which claims to improve Ctrl+Alt+Del comics by removing the second and third panels and removing the text from the fourth panel.

I'm sure it could be written better, but it's a relatively solid source for something easily found on multiple blogs and forums with a "CAD rule" Google search. 76.105.246.26 (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Blogs and forums do not qualify as reliable sources. JuJube (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

For reference,

Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I support a bigger criticism section immensely, and I feel that all the criticism CAD generates is notable... but unfortunatly thanks to Wikipedia's rules and regulations the massive amount of notable blog based dislike of Ctrl-Alt-Del is not notable in any way and can't be published. Personally, I feel that exceptions should be made to this (and of course, Wikipedia: Ignore All Rules could probably be argued convincingly by somebody who had the time) but, to be blunt, you aren't going to get anywhere trying to edit in (generally legitimate) criticism unless it comes straight from a news article on another webcomics site (as opposed to their forums, considering Scott Kurtz had a fairly lengthy criticism of CAD on his forums that managed to never get into the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.112.184 (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's really terrible that we can't source dislike of a webcomic to some jackass with a blog. JuJube (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

not more than a decade hence, ourselves and our uplifted descendants will not discount social media. please respect the future, and each other. - 68.79.22.139 (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I really have no idea what this is supposed to mean. JuJube (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

He rather eloquently launched a stinging retort at you, but I guess you missed it. Zell65 (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain it? I don't speak Stupid. JuJube (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a little....hmmm...vague given the vocabulary he chose, but he's basically saying that in the not-too-distant future, everyone will agree that blogs and forums are the new method of publishing, and the things printed in them should not be taken for granted, nor tossed out as "ridiculous" or "hearsay". I think he feels that forums, blogs, etc should be considered on the same level as other forms of publishing like newspapers etc. It's not "stupid", don't attack him just because you can't comprehend the words he chose Zell65 (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Using big words to sound smart is stupid. I know what the sentence said, but I failed to see (and still do) how it's a "stinging retort", or how it has any relevance whatsoever to the discussion that is taking place in the not distant at all present. The fact that you're defending such an obvious troll makes me question your motivation to butt into this discussion, as well. JuJube (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Forums and blogs are not going to be considered on the same level as magazines and newspapers because there is no level of fact-finding responsibility associated with forums and blogs. The user's anonymity and the self-published nature of blogs and forums means that the authors can say whatever they please, hold it up as fact, and rarely, if ever, be held accountable for the truth of those facts. The internet allows everyone to have their say, but it doesn't transform everyone into credible sources.--Thrindel ^Talk 00:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is true, but what that should amount to in regards to forums posts being considered valid, is that they should be reviewed on a case by case basis and if one is a genuine critique, not just be edited away as if it were just vandalism If the poster cites the facts that make the argument hold up and is presented in a way that's not "I HAET B^U!" It should be given a stamp of approval and treated as something that's real.---4N1M3H34D 09:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

PAX 2008 interview

This is possibly a bit too over-the-top to actually use, but there are now some public comments on Ctrl+Alt+Del by the Penny Arcade guys.

Gabe: I think he's an art criminal.

Tycho: I think Tim Buckley is the antichrist, and I think that miscarriage storyline was the first horseman of the Apocalypse.

76.105.246.26 (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

VGCats' Bee Arrow Up You

How is this not relevant? It's by a direct competitor in the "video game-based comics" genre, it imitates Ctrl+Alt+Del's art style (and if that needs any reinforcing, the link on that page directly excerpts part of a Ctrl+Alt+Del comic), and the intentionally lacklaster dialogue makes it obvious it isn't meant to be seen any sort of positive light. (Secondary edit: Also, the page title ["V+G+Cats"] imitates Ctrl+Alt+Del's use of +'s instead of -'s.) 76.105.246.26 (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You would know why it's not relevant if you had bothered to read the lengthy discussion that has already been had on the topic. It is not notable, it is a self-published source, not by a published expert in the field, and it is interpretive original research. It was left in the article for a month with a request for additional sources, and none were found, so it was removed. The VGCats april fools comic is not a source for the internet meme because it does nothing to explain the meme, short of interpretive WP:OR that doesn't belong here. Furthermore, a post from the author of the VGCats comic states it is "all in good fun", so it is also interpretive to say it was intended as anything otherwise.--Thrindel (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If VGCats is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia entry, shouldn't it be notable enough to be referenced in other Wikipedia entries? And it's not like an explanation is really needed - "Bee Up Arrow You" (eg. B^U, or possibly B↑U) is, once coupled with the art, pretty self-explanatory... and unless you really want to get pedantic about the definitions, "parody of Ctrl+Alt+Del" isn't even a question (whether it's in "good fun" or not). Where is the post you mention, anyway? 76.105.246.26 (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Criticism" section above is where the relevant discussion can be found. (I don't have any opinion on this issue, myself.) JuJube (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, just because VGCats is notable enough to have its own article does not mean the author's opinion is notable. For the exact same reason that when one of these authors (CAD or VGCats) writes about whether they like/dislike a game, we don't go running to the Wikipedia article for that game to insert their opinion under a reception/criticism section. These comics are self published websites. They've become successful enough to generate some notability worth of an article for themselves, but it doesn't make them valid or notable sources of information about other topics and articles, especially opinions.--Thrindel (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Some would disagree. :\ JuJube (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Thrindel as the section previously existed in the critisism section for some time with no further sourcing. The "article" itself on vgcats doesnt indicate anything at all for the B^U meme, other than the title, the explanation on the page points to a similar comic comparison between a comic vgcats did and that Buckley later did. And the clincher would be "All in good fun" so unless you can prove that he meant is as critism and not just another April Fools day joke it shouldnt be added. It should also be noted that the redirect B^U was removed recently after a RFD. If you can provide verifiable acceptable sources on that meme then it should be added, otherwise it is just origional research which was already discussed at length previously on this talk page. Knowledgeum :  Talk  17:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to know where this "all in good fun" came from? 76.105.246.26 (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Directly from Scott Ramsoomair on his April 1st news entry (which can be viewed | about 1/3 of the way down (older descending)). "Well hope you enjoyed the April Fools. All in good fun." Knowledgeum :  Talk  21:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

A single (fragment of a) sentence is a bit much to say that it wasn't meant to be a comment on Ctrl+Alt+Del, particularly absent any other explanation - and when that sentence itself links to Ctrl+Alt+Del's website. 76.105.246.26 (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said it wasn't a parody of CtrlAltDel. Only that there are no sources to imply that it's intended as criticism (short of adding your own OR interpretation of it), to say nothing of notability. Please do not re-add it to the article.--Thrindel (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Saying there isn't a degree of criticism in the comic in question is stretching things more than I can conscionably allow, and notability is irrelevant in regards to article content. 76.105.246.26 (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Saying there is criticism there is WP:OR, which does limit article content. What you may be reading as criticism could be interpreted by someone else as a parody "good fun". You cannot claim to know the artist's state of mind, and placing this in the article under the criticism heading is doing just that. Placing it anywhere else is irrelevant trivia, which the article does not need. Aside from the VGCats newspost saying "All in good fun", I also found this CAD newspost for the comic which the vgcats parody links to, where credit is given as an homage. There are also a number of other newsposts there that seem to indicate a friendship between the two authors. There is plenty of reasonable doubt concerning how the april fools comic was intended, and how you "think" it was intended is irrelevant. And since there is no explanation of what was intended, and a mere mention of it's existence is just trivia, and furthermore it appeared on a self-published website, it has no place in this article.--Thrindel (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thrindel, there are no "experts" in the field of webcomics. And as much as much as your alter-ego would like to believe, people do criticise CAD. It happens all across the internet, and anyone who doesn't sit in Wikipedia arguing all day would know that. Zell65 (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And again, claiming "common knowledge" is not enough to justify this on a controversial topic as per Wikipedia:Common knowledge. Also do not try to out other wikipedia editors. Knowledgeum :  Talk  17:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy with this line of arguement either. The miscarriage arc is by now a widely parodied and ridiculed event, with so many examples apparent it borders on a meme. I'm strongly considering adding note of it to the article complete with some examples of these parodies. I want to know if anyone has any positice critical links to share for insertion. Nilzy (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length here already. You have to provide verifiable third party sources for these parodies, also most of the ones that have done it have already been found to be not notable. Wikipedia isnt a collection of lists, the same rules applies to lists as do regular articles, namely (from Wikipedia:Lists#Listed_items)

Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.

Difficult or contentious subjects for which the definition of the topic itself is disputed should be discussed on the talk page in order to attain consensus and to ensure that each item to be included on the list is adequately referenced and that the page on which the list appears as a whole represents a neutral point of view.

The principle of Neutral Point of View requires that we describe competing views without endorsing any one in particular. Wikipedia:No original research applies equally to a list of like things as it does for the content article on each individual thing listed.

The verifiability policy states that if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores the material to an article to cite sources for that material. Inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying.

Without reliable sources the parodies are all OR and non notable as already discussed on this page many, many, many times. Just because you don't like something doesnt give you the ability to add unnotable unsourced origional research. Knowledgeum :  Talk  18:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Character page

Wasn't there an article with a list of all the characters? I don't see it anywhere, but I might just be missing it. Tenho Karite (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes there was, it was removed per the AFD which can be read here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ctrl+Alt+Del characters. Knowledgeum :  Talk  08:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why does someone not at least write up the other non-main characters in the article itself? TR (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Penny Arcade: "Buckley is an art criminal"

In a recent interview with Tycho and Gabe of Penny Arcade, at their Penny Arcade Expo, they stated their opinions on Tim Buckley. http://www.joystiq.com/2008/09/02/pax-2008-the-penny-arcade-interview/

I feel this is significant and worth adding to the criticism section, as Penny Arcade is a highly influential webcomic and PAX is a major gaming event. --82.25.38.228 (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, PA is big enough in the webcomic world to make even a short statement of opinion about a competitor pretty significant. 3-sphere (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the criticism though? Insults aren't necessarily criticism.--Thrindel ^Talk 20:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To use the Wiktionary definition: "The act of criticising; a critical judgment passed or expressed; a critical observation or detailed examination and review; a critique; animadversion; censure." Saying "he's [Tim Buckley] an art criminal" sounds like a critical judgment to me. 3-sphere (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To dissect Tycho's statement further, "I think Tim Buckley is the antichrist, and I think that miscarriage storyline was the first horseman of the Apocalypse." This is a criticism of Tim Buckley himself, and then his webcomic afterwards. After all, this is an article about the comic, and not the author. --82.25.38.228 (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate, 3-sphere, there is no analyzing or evaluating of the work in question in those quotes. It seems more akin to 'Q: What did you think of this? A: I didn't like it'. And the "I don't like it" is offered with an insulting tone. If the fact they didn't like it is important to the article, then I would suggest the heading changed from 'Criticism' to 'Reception', since you would now be including not criticism, but rather just someone's like or dislike of the topic.--Thrindel ^Talk 20:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Section edited. Their thoughts/insults about the author are not relevant to the comic strip's reception.--Thrindel ^Talk 21:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. 3-sphere (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thrindel, it's a webcomic. Not Shakespeare. You're hardly going to find a mention in a newspaper or the CNN website. The criticism is there, it's about time it was added to this rather flattering article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Chain Of Flowers (talk • contribs) 11:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's Shakespeare or not, this is an encyclopedia. If someone were to say "I think Shakespeare was the antichrist", it would not get added to Shakespeare's article. It is neither an critical evaluation of the person or his work. It's just someone saying "I don't like him" in a nasty way. Just because this is a webcomic article doesn't make it any less deserving of a proper encyclopedic article. And outside of the reception section, everything else is completely neutral and concise. There's nothing flattering about it just because we're not adding the "hur hur this sucks" that some people would like to see in there.--Thrindel ^Talk 18:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I still fail to understand why you care so much about this particular article. You always seem to argue and get your way, and I just fail to see why any one man should control and entire entry.

No one single person "controls" this page, you should check the edit history and see just how many other contributors work on this page. Perhaps if they followed wikipedia policies more of thier content would stay. To keep adding the personal opinion on Buckley violates wp:blp and should not be reincluded. Knowledgeum :  Talk  18:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I care about this article because of the amount of people that try to turn the article into "lulz, I hate CAD" with unsourced material and vandalism. I back up my arguments with Wikipedia policies and third opinions by Wikipedia administrators. This article, just as every other on Wikipedia, deserves a fair, and neutral tone with properly sourced fact, despite whatever dislike 4chan or any other little club may harbor.--Thrindel ^Talk 18:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually Thrindel, most of the comments are more than fair. For example, there was the person who suggested that the Bee Arrow Up You parody should be mentioned. Yet you just said "oh that isn't criticism, you're just interpreting it that way.", and deleted his addition. Or there was the people who suggested that there should be mention of Gabe and Tycho's comments on Buckley. Certainly the comments of the creators of one of the most popular comics deserves some mention. Again, every time someone tried to include that, you reverted it. The way you seem to constantly delete negative additions, despite being warned before about edit wars, makes it look like you just don't want people to hear what others think of CAD. Many pages have a reception section that describes what the popular opinion of the work is, and they don't have any problems with people saying that the section contains OR or has too much POV. I think that people's criticisms about the comic should be heard, whether they are positive or negative. Go find some notable people who like the comic, and we can mention them just as fairly as the negative comments Zell65 (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself, Zell65. The general publics opinion on something is always notable. I'm going to draw a reference to the Oasis album "Be Here Now" and I believe in the reception section, it says something along the lines of "Puplic reaction to the album was positive at the time of release, but it has since been seen as a step downward from the previous album". If Buckley can't accept criticism, that's his problem. But the actual article should contain the publics views on it, just like everything else. There's a certain level of elitism about this that doesn't sit well. --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Oasis album article contains notable and verifiable third party sources to back up its content. I guarantee you it would not be there if the only source they had was SPS, like some guy's blog or something.--Thrindel ^Talk 23:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes Zell, someone wanted the bee you meme in the article, and I reverted it. They sought a third opinion, twice, and both times it was agreed that calling it criticism was WP:OR.

We've included the one tidbit from the Penny Arcade interview that was actually an opinion on the comic itself. Personal insults don't have a place in the article.

It's all well and good that you think people's criticisms should be heard, but if they aren't notable or properly sourced, they don't belong here, in this encyclopedia.--Thrindel ^Talk 23:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a public reaction, and it will always belong in an encyclopedia as it chronicles the success of the comic. Going with that theme, what place does an insignificant webcomic have in an encyclopedia?

I don't know the situation with the VGCats comic, but I'm assumming you (thrindel) had something to do with it not being added, despite it being completely relevent? --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You want to nominate the article for AfD, be my guest. Nobody said the comic was insignificant. But your "public reactions" still have to meet WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR, to name a few.--Thrindel ^Talk 23:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I wouldn't know how to do such a thing. I've been using Wikipedia in an editorial sense for about a month now, and even then haven't spent that much time doing so. Pretty much every article, whether it be music, film or literature, contains at least a few references to the general public. Thrindel, would you be by any chance the author of said comic?--A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So the guy protects the CAD page, making sure wikipedia is up to the standards in place, and you're questioning his identity for doing that? That's retarded. "Oh, gee, that man who broke into my house MUST have been the pizza guy I didn't tip yesterday." Illogical belief is illogical. Just because Thrindel reads CAD and protects the page from idiots who think it's sooooo funny to vandalize the page based on their opinion, doesn't make him Tim Buckley. If you're so concerned about the public reaction getting into the page, then go find reputable sources, make sure it's within the standards and post it. It's NOT that difficult, and it would save you a lot more time than arguing in the talk page. Otherwise, shut up and stop whining.

And by the way, I'm NOT the biggest fan of CAD, but I still read it.

No, that does not make me Tim Buckley for defending Thrindel. 74.75.59.121 (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

... umm ... they were joking, surely. I read webcomics with humourous intent, and I can often detect humour. The comments by Gabe and Tycho were meant to be funny. I present as irrefutable evidence the fact that I laughed. ;P Gawd, people. They played it for laughs. Please ... give them some, OK? Colonel Tom 12:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

They have repeatedly stated their dislike of both comic and author. The link shown was one such instance. It is allowed for web artists and writers to dislike each other and their work.Nilzy (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Parodies section/memes, perhaps?

The webcomic is fairly open to parodies, and since that thrindel guy seems to care so much about the criticism section, perhaps we could add a parodies section? Several more notable comics have had parodies of it in their story lines (Cyanide and Happiness and VG cats to name but a few) and by some small margin is this not a sign of the actual comics notablility? Particularly the Miscarriage strip has been parodied, and a few internet memes have arisen from them. Memes are hard to find sources for, but do they really need sources? It's just something that's posted on forums and places like 4chan for humour purproses. Notable, but not referable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Chain Of Flowers (talk • contribs) 11:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works.--Thrindel ^Talk 18:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of pages with parody sections --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps articles about far more notable subjects, with far more notable parodies. CtrlAltDel is not notable enough to require a huge, bloated article with trivia, and fanfic, and parodies, etc. As you said yourself, it's just a webcomic. This article used to be that large, and myself and a number of other editors spent a great deal of time removing all unecessary information from the article.--Thrindel ^Talk 18:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, the mere fact that other more notable webcomics have produced parodies should be seen as a sign of a wecomics own notability. It's for this reason it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Chain Of Flowers (talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not really a sign of notability. What comic is "more notable" than another is generally a debatable concept. There are far, far more notable subjects, things like Star Wars that beyond a doubt have spawned tons of parodies in popular culture, and these articles do not feature a "parodies" section. It reads like trivia or fancruft. In addition to that, they are self-published sources. Self published sources are fine in articles about themselves, as long as certain criteria is met, but they are not okay for third party articles. These are the reasons it does not belong in the article.--Thrindel ^Talk 18:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a Chain of Flowers, the fact that other authors care enough to parody it shows that the comic is notable. As the saying goes, "Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery". It seems to me that you just don't like that it's notable for being parodied by other authors. Buckley himself must have known that his comic would initially be made fun of, that's why he hung a lampshade on the fact that his comic shamelessly rips off the concept of other comics in the genre in his first strip. Zell65 (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We already know that the comic is notable, and from credible third party sources at that. We don't need SPS trivia to establish notability. And your argument that the comic is notable for being parodied is pretty thin.--Thrindel ^Talk 22:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Your argument that it shouldn't appear is also pretty thin. I'm sorry, but would it be possible to get an opinion from someone other than thrindel? It always seems to be his word on everything. An entirely neutral source if possible, please. --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck finding someone who disagrees with Thrindel, he seems to have scared off all the newbies to the discussion by faulting their comments. Zell65 (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been searching, I've yet to find another article with a "Parodies" section. Movies, music, other comics, nothing. None of them even list parodies in reception or cultural influence sections. And some of these things I know have been parodied. Care to point me to an article that considered parodies important material for the article? It seems like a list of trivia to me. Wikipedia states that trivia sections should be avoided if at all possible, and I don't see why it can't be avoided over the case of a mere 2 SPS webcomic parodies.--Thrindel ^Talk 23:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The section could be called "Cultural References" then, as most parodies and other information to do with an article are placed there on most other pages. Perhaps calling it "Parodies" would have been a mistake on my part. Want to check a page or two? Search "The Simpsons", "Family Guy" and I believe "VG Cats" to name a few --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at those articles. Nothing in VGCats about parodies, nothing in the Simpsons... I saw a MAD magazine cover in the Family Guy article. I'll tell you what, when MAD Magazine parodies CAD, we'll include that.--Thrindel ^Talk 23:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a cultural reference. They come in many forms. A parody is one of them. Again, I'd like someone elses say please.

A simple search for the word "parodies" turned up entire articles dedicated to the parodies of other other works, such as James Bond, Harry Potter, and the campfire song "My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean". You must not of looked very hard. Zell65 (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you're comparing the cultural impact and significance of James Bond and Harry Potter with a webcomic? Alrighty, make an article about the parodies of CAD.--Thrindel ^Talk 23:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you see where those parodies are coming from? Books. Films. Television. These are extremely notable properties being parodied in WP:V mediums. Just because CAD is a SPS does not make SPS sources suddenly okay for its article.--Thrindel ^Talk 00:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thrindel, stop taking everything so literally. It should be added as a "Cultural References" section. --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because something isn't well known or popular, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve having a section which describes how people react to it, or the effect it has had on culture. Almost every page has mention of the effects something has had on culture. CAD has had an effect on internet culture, which has been shown through parodies, among other things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zell65 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And I understand that. But this is like if we were to add any comic from VGCats or CAD that parodied a game, to said game's article. If VGCats makes a comic parody on Super Mario, we don't go adding a mention to some "Parodies" section under the Super Mario article. Heck, even if the New York Times did a parody of Mario, I doubt it would make it into the article. Why? Because parodies aren't generally important or notable, unless you can provide some sort of background in addition that makes the parody notable.

For instance: Penny Arcade did a parody of strawberry shortcake, I believe. That's listed in the strawberry shortcake article because there was a resulting legal issue involved. If that legal issue hadn't happened, the mention wouldn't be there.

It's not because these things haven't had impacts on culture. It's because anyone can make a parody for whatever reason, and unless there's something about the situation that makes that parody notable, it just doesn't belong here. The VGCats april fools gag was "all in good fun" as per the artist's newspost. A tongue in cheek jab between two friends perhaps. The other one doesn't even have any explanation or criticism to accompany it.--Thrindel ^Talk 00:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, Chain of Flowers, listen to yourself. By your logic, the Internet memes articles should be back to the bloated piece of cruft that it was before Wikipedia editors finally put a stop to all the random stupidity and required everything to be sourced. I have no opinion on a "Parodies" section; honestly, though, I've seen more parodies of xkcd than of CAD, and I suspect that the reason people are so adamant about having "Parodies", "Criticism", etc. sections here is because they think Tim Buckley "is the Anti-Christ". But whatever, if it can be sourced properly, I don't care. But don't think for one second that I'll let a statement like "Memes are hard to find sources, but do they really need sources?" slide. JuJube (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Awards Section

I noticed that the VG Cats article has a section that outlines the awards won by the comic. Being that CAD is a more popular comic(I think), why do we not have a section for awards here? Zell65 (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We did have a section for awards and nominations. It was removed for the sake of paring down unnecessary trivia and cruft. CAD is a popular comic, it's achieved some measure of notability, but it doesn't warrant a huge article.--Thrindel ^Talk 22:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There probably are none that are "sufficiently sourced"--A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with this article's length, compare Penny Arcade (webcomic), which is just as notable, but has a longer article, as well as a "analysis" section, which mentions some of it's accolades. If they can have awards/accolades sections without problems, why can't this one? Zell65 (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Penny Arcade is far more notable a comic than CAD is, and thus is requires/deserves a longer article. CAD regularly supports charities and donation drives, and while that would be nice to mention in the article, it's not necessary or particularly notable. Penny Arcade has created their own charity, which is notable. It's not a matter of it "can't" have the section, it's just a matter of, is the comic really important enough, and if we start adding all this stuff back in, are we going to end up with a big bloated fancrufty article again.--Thrindel ^Talk 23:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thrindel, you seem to be cutting the article to skin and bones. You keep deleting things as fancruft, to the point where it hurts the article in the long run. I suggest you read the essay about fancruft and reconsider your judgement, or at least stop deleting everything you see just because you think it's "trivial". Zell65 (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Awards and praise are "trivia" while what some other web comic's creator says and other criticism is perfectly valid to add... --Armanalp (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just clarifying this: the awards that are actually worth mentioning, that is the 2005/6 Outstanding Comic award and the like, have been rightly included. As has criticism from noted peers and critics. Webcomic of the Week awards are cultural flotsam, and are not included. If you want to include those awards, along with a complete list of winners of every other week, do it on the Joystiq page.Nilzy (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Ok, all this "Thrindel is Buckley" has to stop. Noone has any evidence to point to it, other than some crudely made flimsy "evidence" on a website that itself is unreliable. If you people have a problem with an editor keep it to yourself or keep it on the contributors talk page. Continualy trying to out someone with conflict of interest accusations is against policy and has to stop. You must always assume good faith and not try to out other editors with no evidence that can not even stand up to the slightest scrutiny. If you think there is a coi, then take it to WP:COIN instead of continualy voicing your opinions and allegations here. This page is for discussing the comic, not for discussing who someone thinks someone else is. Knowledgeum :  Talk  08:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

THANKYOUILOVEYOUHAVEMYCHILDREN. JuJube (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, note that WP:COI is nothing more than advice to contributors who have a CoI. It does not compel any behaviours by anybody, alleged CoIs are not reasons to undo edits, and the guideline is not intended as a club with which to beat editors over the head. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think you're taking this a tad too seriously? It's a freaking open-edit webpage, not some "holier than thou" end-all collection. The fact that I was threatened a ban just for suggesting that was his identity says enough about how over the top this is. You all take yourselves way too seriously; good faith my ass.Mattlittlej (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because accusing someone of being the creator of the article subject in question is REALLY showing good faith. Great logic there, buddy. JuJube (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad you agree =D Seriously, you all need to lighten up; it's a bloody web comic, not a Supreme Court decision.Mattlittlej (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually no its a wikipedia article. And throwing out random accusations on who's who just wont fly here. There are plenty of other places where you can go post with your baseless accusations on the internet, here is not going to be one of them. Knowledgeum :  Talk  07:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I echo the above; what we're taking seriously here is not the web comic or even the article on the web comic, but the reputation of a living person whose reputation you are attempting to debase. You are on very thin ice. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Debase? I'm not trying to debase anything, nor was I every trying to. All I did was make the assumption that the two were one an the same and it spiraled out of control, kind of like this. I made a point and raised an issue that was grossly misinterpreted, and for that I apologize. But my God, threatening a ban for voicing my opinion? There is so much wrong with that.Mattlittlej (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as an aside, I really don't think this would have gotten nearly as sour if Thrindel just said "I am not Tim" instead of throwing wiki policy at everyone who makes that claim. 5 minutes of digging around the CAD site mixed with just a glance at his user page brings enough evidence to show that they are two different people.Mattlittlej (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you know damned well that this isn't acceptable (and if you don't, here are some links: WP:OUTING, WP:AGF), so I don't think there's any need to discuss it further. I'm glad that you're through with this particular set of accusations, and I'd advise you not to make any comparable ones elsewhere. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Still doesn't change the fact that this can of worms would have stayed shut if Thrindel just out and said he wasn't Buckley. But whatever, water under the bridge, and I've actually been smiling through all this. You remember the end of the court scene in Pleasantville? You're the admin, after all....Mattlittlej (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't blame your poor behavior on me. It's your responsibility to abide by WP:AGF, not my responsibility to waste my time defending myself from ridiculous and baseless accusations.--Thrindel ^Talk 00:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, he doesn't have a responsibility to abide by AGF, he believes that getting rid of you would improve Wikipedia, and there isn't a whole lot that can be done to convince him and everyone else otherwise. It's only your fault that some people on here don't like you. After all the alienating of newbies on this page, it was only a matter of time before some people got pissed off, Thrindel. And if you are who they say you are, just admit it, and we can talk about how to improve the page, rather than sit around reverting edits from vandals and other idiots that you attracted. Baseless or not, they have their suspicions. These people are attracted to shitstorms like flies to actual shit. Zell65 (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Character List

I don't perticularly think the character list needs to be that long or that detailed. Some of the characters have longer descriptions than entire sections in the article and it just reads like an individual biography of each and every character that has ever appeared in the comic. I think the article should include just the main characters and any major recurring supporting cast. I do not think that it needs to include a list of minor no longer appearing cast. I agree with most of the comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ctrl+Alt+Del characters that the list is mostly fancruft and needs severe trimming to just major/recurring. I don't see how we can effectively more than doubled the size of the article by adding a list of every character who ever appeared on the comic. Knowledgeum :  Talk  08:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with the anon's logic in replacing the section and perceive his edit to be disruptive. I'm going to remove the section once more. If he replaces it again, I won't revert, but I doubt he will get consensus to get his way. JuJube (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not about having all those characters back in the article. It's a place to start again building a reasonable list of supporting characters whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.25.140.211 (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Scorpion is a (apparently venomous) scorpion that Ethan bought on a whim at the mall, and then named after the Mortal Kombat character... I assure you, there is not a need for that, and I would go so far as to say the whole Supporting Characters section can go without any harm to the article. It is a gag-driven, not story-driven, strip, after all. JuJube (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The section is just too large and crufty when weighed against what little it may actually add to the article as a whole. We don't want to get bogged down trying to cover every little detail of the comic or its stories. I think the article is healthier without it.--Thrindel ^Talk 20:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's healthier (whatever that means) without so much junk. But the article is entirely missing the point if the four Players or the Gamer Dictionary is not even mentioned, so why don't you nominate it for deletion right away? :)

Why do you think I did the edit that way rather than summarize it or whatever? It has happened exactly like it had to be. Rather than using those sections to improve the article some bureaucrates come along and just shoot and asking later dont even bother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.25.140.211 (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well let's put it this way... the edit as it stood is far too big to be added. However, perhaps we can add a small paragraph that touches on some of the non-storyline recurring characters. Perhaps a mention of Chef Brian, the players and maybe the glossary man. Ones that seem obvious to continue returning. Rather than giving them each their own biography, you could write a small section that explains that there are other recurring characters that appear outside of the stories, etc. Then you can bring that here and we can discuss putting it into the article.--Thrindel ^Talk 17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I've full protected the article for three days due to edit-warring. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, was a bit more than what I had requested on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Ctrl+Alt+Del (which actualy is still unfulfilled as of this posting). I am wondering what was the warring in this case as there seem to be 2 current issues happening at the moment. The Criticism/Reception reverts (that reached agreeable concensus for "Reception" on this page) or the addition/reverting of the character list that has just started? Knowledgeum :  Talk  20:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I full-protected owing to the reception/criticism debate - could you point me to the consensus on the question? I don't follow this talk page too closely, but a quick scan hasn't turned up any extensive discussion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion appears to be here[14] between User:3-sphere and User:Thrindel with the section being edited here[15] on the 2nd by 3-sphere, after that there have been 12 reverts by anon single edit users to the origional Criticism without any further discussion despite the numerous edit summeries requesting discussion and even the notice put on the page for the title change. Knowledgeum :  Talk  20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In light of adding the comment from Holkins to the article, which is not criticism but rather his dislike of the storyline in question, I suggested changing the heading to 'Reception' as an umbrella heading to cover both the criticism from Croshaw and the reaction quote, and the editor, 3-Sphere, agreed. I felt that Holkins' comment is not substantial enough to warrant it's own section, and it also works well following the comments from Croshaw on the same subject, which is why the two were combined and placed under a heading title that encompasses both.--Thrindel ^Talk 20:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's protected for three days - if the I.P.s don't like it being called "Reception", they can bring it here. If they don't, and just resume edit-warring once the protection's expired, I'll be more amenable to treating their edits as vandalism and all that that entails (blocking and/or semi-protection). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I for one have no problems with calling the section "reception". That is after all what articles about other media use. Zell65 (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Gears of War 2 Presentation

Adding that the presentation is parodying "excessive" dialog is not the case. If you watch the actual presentation they state no such thing at all. The entire presentation can be viewed here[16]. I have already gone to the trouble of writing out the relevant section as there is nothing to state that they are parodying it for excessive dialog. Here is the transcript with relevant time stamps.

<15:40>So heres an example of, I don't know if everybody can read the text so I'll abbreviate it. The great guys at Ctrl Alt Del made this comic where Cliff is saying how will we make Gears 2 bigger, and some unnamed executive at Epic, I cant imagine who it'd be, is going " what are we gonna do, we already have a chainsaw man!" And over here you can see quite unrealistically cliff slapping with the front of his hand, because he backhands me when he's upset. And says "I've got ideas. And then trainsaw was our plan. So clearly we will have a trainsaw in our game, look for it. So they know, the comic artists know the guys with the humor know that you can't always compete with yourself.<16:22>

I don't see anywhere in that entire section about the text other than it is hard to read on the projector slides, as such I have removed it from the reception section as a parody of "excessive dialog". Knowledgeum :  Talk  19:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Image

Shouldn't the image just be the logo? It seems more like advertising to have the cover of a DVD :S --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: CAD Sillies as a seperate paragraph

Do the CAD Sillies belong in a seperate paragraph or the article header?

They really don't. A brief mention, perhaps. A full paragraph full of mostly useless information? I think not--A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The section was a brief mention. It was concise and to the point, and covers a topic which is a spin-off/addition to the main subject of the article. Other spin-offs have their small sections as well, on this and other similar articles (VGCats, Penny Arcade). Additionally, the sections are a good way to categorize and seperate the different bits of information, rather that just shoving it all into one giant paragraph at the beginning of the article.--Thrindel ^Talk 20:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Then let's do what the VGCats article does, and have a section for related comics in general, rather than a whole section for one thing. 142.33.122.31 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That would make more sense, to be honest. I agree with this. And the "useless information" I'm talking about is the overall lack of common sense in this article, as if everything needs to be explained concisely. A brief mention of all the spin offs and other such things (CAD premium, the dreadful "Other works" section", etc) into one "to the point", as thrindel put it, paragraph/section would be more sufficient. There's just not enough information for all these things to merit their own section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Chain Of Flowers (talk • contribs) 21:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And that will be fine... once CAD starts doing more than the one spinoff webcomic. VGCats does like four or something, so it makes sense for them to be grouped into one section. As far as I'm aware, the sillies are the only spinoff. These are facets of the content that that article is about. You are treating them like we're attempting to give them their own articles. Entire articles, and sections within an article, are not viewed with the same weight. Why should we lump everything into a single "other" section with scatterbrained information about a bunch of different things that someone has to sort through, when it's not taking any additional space or resources to give the major facets a section heading.--Thrindel ^Talk 01:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, there seems to be this movement going onto delete any additional paragraphs and merge everything into the header. Breaking things down into individual sections makes it easier for others to locate information insteead of wading through a bunch of non related information. Using the vgcats article I would think that would be the one to be trimmed, as the sections seem to mostly be about flash in the pan, and 1/2 made content (the animated series for instance), doesnt even have 1 episode, where as cad premium has 2 seasons and 2 editions of dvd available. The section on cad premium is 2 sentances, the section on vgcats is 6 with a cast list. Mind you there is a seperate article for cad premium, but even that only contains 3 sentances and the episode list. If anything we need expansion of the sections, not deleting everything as "useless". Knowledgeum :  Talk  07:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As the section was discussed on the talk page before it was even added to the article I don't see any reason why it shouldnt have its own small paragraph. The difference between this one and the related comics in the vgcats article are that this one is current, 2 of the 4 comics are no longer maintained, 1 has its own article, and the other is like the sillies which is a spinoff, but of ctrl+alt+del itself. It is now a daily addition to the website, it appears to address some of the "common critism" the regular comic has. Removing every sentance that doesnt have a source on the end of it seeems exceedingly counter-productive. If you want to source every single sentance in the entire article you are welcome to it, I seem to recall the same issue for the CAD Premium section being removed as "unneeded, not sourced". I would also have to ask how the paragraph was filled with "mostly useless" information. The 4 sentances that made that paragraph included the information on what the addition was, describing the difference between the new and the regular, aswell as the description of what a "daily" strip is to a regular comic. If you could identify the useless information we could work towards a consensus. Knowledgeum :  Talk  20:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually believe that the Sillies section does not warrant a separate paragraph. It has no secondary sources to exert its notability and could probably do with just a mention in the lead. Artichoker[talk] 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd second that idea. Zell65 (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Reception-Too negative

I think that the reception section is too negative. Although this may only be my opinion, consider the "horseman of apocalypse" quote if this wasn't a good comic then there would be no "apocalypse", no? --Armanalp (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no "good" reception that is sufficiently sourced. And if we start adding that, then the epic amount of criticism and bad reception would have to be added too, which would end wikipedia as we know it and usher in the age of common sense and word of mouth --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What the hell kind of logic is that? Did you even do a quick Google search? [17] see that near all the links are praise? Sure they may be blogs, but Penny Arcade isn't exactly a valid source either. --Armanalp (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to Thrindel and the other guy that monitor this article. If it were up to me and most of the other editors of this article, we'd have good and bad reception added to give a more round view of the publics perception of it --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, I will --Armanalp (talk) 06:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the section is not neutral. It may cover some subject matter that isn't neutral, but that coverage is written from a pretty neutral point of view, which is our charge as editors. Self published websites like blogs and forums are just not acceptable sources. That Johnny Blogger thinks CAD is the greatest thing since toast isn't any more notable than Tom Forumposter who thinks it's horrible.

Still, the article used to have a section on awards and nominations [18], that was removed piecemeal here and there. Seems like it might be a fitting addition to the Reception section, if you care to add it. --Thrindel ^Talk 06:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not reception - It's flattery --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, awards and nominations from notable websites, arrived at by majority votes from readers and other webcomic artists isn't an indication of how the comic is received in the community? How do you figure?--Thrindel ^Talk 10:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

They're hardly notable awards CAD has won. I'm sure if I were to make a website and give Penny Arcade an award it wouldn't end up in their article. --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A few other webcomic articles have their awards and nominations from both these locations listed. And are you saying that Joystiq is no longer a notable website? Because the quote from Holkins hinges on it.

Anyway, if not in the reception section, they could always be re-added under their own heading.--Thrindel ^Talk 20:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that that's a false comparison/dilemma. While Joystiq did the interview, the credibility of the quote is from the people being interviewed. That is to say, Jerry Holkins and Mike Krahulik. They are still credible sources for criticism, even if Joystiq isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.173.193 (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What's Joystiq? :S It WOULD make more sense to add them into their own section instead of reception. An award hardly gives any sign of reception among fans, especially as the awards the comic has won are voted for by a minority of people on the sites, or a simple "everyone gets one eventually" system, so no actual merit. --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Very true. It's the same with the Academy awards etc, where some films, despite being loved by everyone who saw them, are given nothing at the awards, and the inverse is just as true. Can't count how many times I've seen a movie get an award even though most people didn't like it. Zell65 (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I made some edits to improve the section, but it still appears to be giving undue weight to passing negative comments from sources that are less than ideal. --23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Webcomic of the Week" awards are utter flotsam, and have been deleted. The criticism are from the creator of Penny Arcade, a noted peer, and a professional critic. They are valid. The three nominations for Outstanding Comic/Gaming Comic are perfectly acceptable. People are going to have to come to terms with the fact that the comic that they love/hate may not be loved/hated in the wider sphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.12.230.131 (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If joystix isn't a notable site, why are we including an interview from it? The "only a small minority votes" logic is nonsense, as all polls follow that logic.

Now I agree these aren't the most notable of praises, (Penny Arcade is more popular and thus there can be more notable ones (this is to answer the guys who state that they would add non notable awards to articles with more popular subject matter)) however neither are our critics, the cross haw guy bashes basically bashes every critical acclaimed game, but is his opinion included on articles of popular games? No! Instead more notable gaming authorities are referenced... Lacking such a critic for this article, we reference him instead, by the same logic since there is no very popular authority on webcomics we include the joystiq awards. --Armanalp (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I wanted to point out this is flawed logic. If John McCain or Barack Obama did an interview with the Pocomoke Tattler or something, we could still accept it because an interview is more about credibility of the person being interviewed; their thoughts are being expressed directly to the interviewer. The Holkins quote would stand up just as well if it were in the New York Times or in the IHaveAGamingBlog.com, as long as he confirms that he actually said those things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.173.193 (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you changed the text to a more flowery version, as it seems overly appreciative of the subject matter; fawning over it almost. It's been reverted back to what it was. A lot more criticisms could be dragged up in very short order on this particular topic, but that's, currently, a waste of space, so the "under criticism" comment will suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.12.230.131 (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There's an unanswered question from the criticism section of this page asking for why the subject on the article was renamed to "Reception." I want an better answer than the one I've been able to find so far, which is mostly "Thrindel didn't like it." If I don't get one it's getting reverted.Nilzy (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not unanswered. It has been answered a few times. The answer is on this very page. An excerpt was added to the section that was not criticism (the quote from Holkins), but rather an opinion of dislike of the comic. The heading was changed from criticism to reception to reflect the new broader focus of the section, and it was agreed on by other editors.--Thrindel ^Talk 14:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism is not intrinsically negative, so I don't see the need for a reception header. Most of the arguing for the change, and indeed half of the arguing on this page seems to be done by yourself and Thrindel, which makes me wary of the both of you. That said, I'll not change anything until I'm convinced it needs to be righted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilzy (talk • contribs) 13:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please learn to Assume Good Faith, statements like "...makes me wary of the both of you" are not good faith. Reception is a more neutral statment as not all items under that header are critism. As this article has the tendancy to deal with the artist we must always abide by the Biographys of Living People policies in not damaging others reputation with Weasel Words. You are welcome to discuss any changes on the talk page to reach a consensus, but remember to assume good faith when on wikipedia. Knowledgeum :  Talk  01:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't just hide behind AGF every time someone says something about you or Thrindel. People are seeing what you're writing, and making judgements based off that. It isn't their fault. I still stand behind my statement that you and Thrindel are scaring off all the newbies to this page by telling them they're doing things wrong. In fact, acting like every new user is out to get you isn't very good faith itself. Zell65 (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to hide behind anything, AGF is there to keep wikipedia civil and your feelings don't give you the ability to bypass that policy. As for scaring away newbies, if they don't continue to contribute when given wikipedias policy, that would be thier inability to contribute in policy guidelines. As for this... Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del is for discussing the article not the contributors. I advise if you have issues with contributors to keep it to thier talk pages, or to yourself, but not in the article space. Knowledgeum :  Talk  19:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Knowledgeum is correct. Disliking or disagreeing with another editor's contributions is not an invitation or excuse to violate AGF. Comment on content, not contributors.--Thrindel ^Talk 20:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is defined by the contributors. For example, this article has recently been protected. Simply from reading this and the history page I am left in no doubt as to who requested such a change. I'm not saying the change was unwarranted. I'm saying both yourself and Knowledgeum have a disproportionate amount of say in what goes on in this article.Nilzy (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The article became protected under its own merits from the constant blp vandalism that requires extensive cleanup by admins. I have no more say in the article than anyone else, save at this point anon ip editors. At this point again I will remind you to comment on the content and not on the contributors. Knowledgeum :  Talk  17:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it comes under vandalism, and what we are terming vandalism here is very much open to debate given both your and Thrindel's response to a certain other user on this talk page, should be a sign to any reasonable mind that the article is unpalatable to most people. From reading down this page this is the same conclusion that I come to, with a vocal minority of the usual suspects crying otherwise. I'm wondering what can be done to change this. As most reverted changes are overwhelmingly negative this may mean expanding the Reception section further, adding in sections detailing the creators art style or the impact of the famous "Miscarriage" storyline and the ensuing backlash. Any of these would be preferable to locking an article on a public encyclopedia.Nilzy (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nilzy has said what most people on this talk page have been pushing since they've joined in on the discussion in a much more polite way, and I whole heartedly agree. I also believe when a contributor directly affects the content of the article itself, it's impossible to ignore and as such, comments like "At this point again I will remind you to comment on the content and not on the contributors" become redundant and a way of distancing from the matter at hand --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush is frequently under vandalism, does that make it a bad article? JuJube (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you agree with my position or not JuJube, so I can't really comment until you clarify.Nilzy (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a position on the Reception issue, I'm just saying that "If it gets vandalized a lot, it means something is wrong with the article" is not valid reasoning. JuJube (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If an article is constantly edited in negative fashion by a majority of users and only kept in it's current form by the efforts of a handful of people then there is reasonably a problem with the content of the article. If it does not satisfy the majority then alterations can be made. The vocal minority seems to be content treating unregistered users as vandals or second-class citizens and off-handedly quote their anonymity as proof of such. If this were a single or even a handful of users then your point would have credence, but this seems to be happening so often and with such an amount of differing adresses that to dismiss this arguement so readily is nothing shy of ignorance.Nilzy (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to respond to the above suggestion that the current page protection was requested by Thrindel or Knowledgeum: I instituted the protection, and I did so entirely of my own volition. I've never had any off-wiki communication with other editors about this article, and if you peruse my on-wiki communication you'll find nothing like the situation that you suggest. As to the suggestion that vandalism proves that the article is unbalanced, I have to disagree: as I understand it (I have no strong opinions about this comic strip and never read it), there are a large number of people who, for whatever reason, intensely dislike this comic and especially its author. That they are rather dedicated in using this page for defamation doesn't prove anything about the article; it only proves that there are a lot of people who want to use this page to defame Tim Buckley. In fact, your line of reasoning essentially encourages vandalism, because it tells vandals "Hey, if you don't like how a page reads, you just need to vandalize it a lot and we'll conclude that it's somehow unbalanced". As always, I take no positions in any content disputes on this article (aside from egregious policy violations). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The last "vandal" that you dealt with on this page was user 86.46.208.159, whose post contained nothing but his own opinions and suggestions which happened to reflect the majority of users who edit the article negatively. He laid out his reasons for feeling the need to change the page thus and you deleted it and pronounced it vandalism. This does not fill me with confidence that you act with an unbiased mind towards this article, or treat the views of the registered users evenly with unregisted ones. The recent vandalism on the actual article can be avoided by editing the article to be more reflective of it's subject matter, rather than locking a public page. Wikipedia is not an old boys club; if the majority view is that something should be changed then it should be changed. The fact that you choose to interpret this as me okaying vandalism is a little insulting. The fact of this subject matter is that is and has been the subject of satire, parody and piss-take across the web due to it's art, it's dialogue and it's infamous storyline. The last piece of vandalism on the main page drew reference to this and the artist's penchant for using image-searched backgrounds. The revert before that was for "fancruft" and yet accuratly provided more information on the characters that was relevant (the source of one character's name, for one) and could be readily quoted in the comic. Further reverts also centred around relevant "fancruft". Any entry which is blatant vandalism, such as the occasional insult against the author or characters, should of course be removed, but much could be done to prevent this without the knee-jerk approach of locking the page. I remain unhappy in how this page has been edited both from the occasional vandal and from regular user, and I see little reason not to include further sections to mitigate future disputes. Nilzy (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed that material because it included a personal attack on an identifiable living person. It was subsequently re-inserted without the personal attack. Knowledgeum then deleted it again, using my previous removal as partial justification. Seeing that, I explained to him (in our first ever direct communication, rather undermining your suggestion that I'm his pet admin) that I didn't endorse his action, since the material he'd deleted didn't include the personal attacks. If you believe that my administrative actions on this article have been inappropriate, you can take it to WP:ANI, WP:NPOVN, or WP:BLPN; I am confident that you won't find much sympathy for that view at any of those venues. As for article content, the I.P. had it right: you can "all know" anything you like, but unless it's substantiated by a reference to reliable third party sources, it can't go in the article. Regarding the page lock (or, more accurately, semi-protection - registered users can still edit it), it wasn't the result of "occasional vandalism", but the result of egregious and defamatory accusations against an identifiable living person inserted multiple times per day (you can't see these because I've deleted them, but any other administrator can). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not made the assertion that you are Knowledgeum's "pet admin" as you call it. As I have stated, I have made the assertion that due to your actions that are viewable to non-admin users on this page you seem to act as an unfair hand, which I can only assume you connected with my criticism of Knowledgeum having a disproportionate say in the content of the article in your head. Crowing that you do not believe I will find much sympathy does not interest me, though it does little to dissuade the image. The reverts which I have quoted recently were all the acts of vandalism that are viewable to the public, so how are we to be expected to take into account what you have apparently deleted if we cannot see it for ourselves? Nevermind the fact that I have previously stated that serious and unfounded character attacks should be removed. Regardless I've no interest in getting into an arguement with an admin. Getting back to the main problem, the content of this page remains unpalatable to a majority of users. Thus it is appropriate that it should be expanded upon. I see no problem with doing this regarding the areas I mentioned above provided I can source relevant quotations.Nilzy (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My 2cents: First off, thanks to Nilzy for standing up for me. I would have postd something earlier, but my net's been down for a while. It's good to know that there are people on wikipedia that are freindly and ASSUME GOOD FAITH. It's also good to know that others are getting annoyed by the censorship that goes on around here. My comments were not vandalism, as I've explained, nor where they personal attacks, nor where they directly attacking Tim Buckley, as it's not really an attack to merely state ones opinion on the talk page, especially if backed by evidence, as long it stays there. I say again, the reception section is filled with mostly criticism, because most reliable sources don't like CAD or Tim Buckley. The sources agree, so don't delete my posts saying so. Christ, I just said many think his art is crap, it's not like I said he runs around holding up banks.86.46.246.49 (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Plagarism

It's worth mentioning CAD has ripped off a number of other webcomics in its lifetime, sometimes even directly. This should be added to a retitled "Criticism" section. Comics it has stolen jokes and strips from include Penny Arcade, VG Cats, and I'm pretty sure one called F@nboys. --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

How is it critism if something were to rip something else off as you state? That is completely OR and wouldnt even belong in a critism section if it was worth mentioning. Its not critism to copy something, and as we've been down the road on OR and the reception section you have to provide reliable third party sources on the "ripped off", aswell as the notability of that information. Knowledgeum :  Talk  17:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me put this another way: many people believe that Buckley ripped-offed artists. But until someone noteworthy says so, then he didn't.

Also, to Knowledgeum: I have yet to hear the pharse "rip-off" being used as anything but as negative criticism of any work, for example, see the arguement of Pantera versus Exhorder, Bill Hicks versus Denis Leary, etc. They clearly have sections on their respective pages on wikipedia. I'm not saying the CAD article should have one, I'm just saying that stating that Buckley ripped off other comics is a form of critisicm.

Please note that when someone labels my post in a discussion that was meant to be explanatory, as vandalism, I don't really care who calls it vandalism. Mods are not some fictional superior race. They know all the rules and are experts at abiding by them, but they are still human. This is not a personal attack. If you can't reply to my statement then leave it, Knoweldgeum. Stop reverting it. Nothing of what I said was BLP. I merely stated something that is generally believed. I never suggested it be added to the article.86.46.208.159 (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Should Tim get his own article?

I've noticed that Brian Clevinger (8-Bit Theater Creator), Jerry Holkins, Mike Krahulik (both Penny Arcade creators), and Scott Ramsoomair (VGCats creator) all have their own Wikipedia articles. So why doesn't Tim Buckley have his own Wikipedia Article? I don't know if this is the right place to put it. 70.128.97.30 (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Clevinger, Holkins and Krahulik have things they did outside of their respective webcomics that are notable. (I don't know about Ramsoomair, not familiar with his other stuff). Tim Buckley used to have an article, but it was generally found that outside of CAD he's not notable. JuJube (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Ramsoomair doesn't do anything that isn't Webcomic-related. 70.128.97.30 (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, he seems to be notable for a comic that is officially sanctioned by Square-Enix, at least. JuJube (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
      • VGCats is sanctioned by Square-Enix? That's...awesome possum.
        • Not VG Cats. You did not seem to read Scott Ramsoomair. JuJube (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

He used to have his own article. After this discussion, it was redirected here. Per Wikipedia policy, if you want to create a new article about him, you either need to demonstrate that things have changed since this deletion (i.e. that he's more notable, or that more sources have come to light, or that the previous article didn't make full use of the available sources, etc.) or demonstrate that community consensus has changed (which you'd probably do by making an entry at [[WP:DRV|deletion review). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Mike "Gabe" Krahulik comment

I put in a comment from this fellow, who was quoted in an inteview with Joystiq to say "I think he's an art criminal." It's a comment on the artistry from a respected webcomic artist, and it's from the same interview that the comment with "Tycho" is from. However, it was reverted because "it's a personal attack on a person, not the comic."

I'm going to go right ahead here and disagree, but I can see a possible minor (And stupid) edit war coming from this. The comment is 1. Directly referring to the artwork, 2. Although it does refer to the artist, it is still in reference to his profession and not his personal life et al, and 3. Would expand the small "reception" section.

Anyway, I have reverted the comment back into the page, but I've invited the original reverter to discuss it here if they feel there is an issue here. Gekedo (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The comment is directly referring to the artist, not the comic. There is nothing about that statement that suggests it pertains directly to the comic, and the author does artwork outside of the comic. If he had said "The artwork in the comic is awful", it would be in the article. Krahulik's opinion about the artist is not relevant to the article about the comic (Krahulik's statement is also unexplained- we don't know exactly what he's getting at or inferring. The use of the word "criminal" is really strong and open to misinterpretation). This is also the reason why we only used half of the comment from Holkins. Personal insults about the author are not relevant to an article about the comic, especially when they don't contain any language that can be interpreted as reception of the comic itself. Holkins directly references a storyline from the comic and his dislike of it, which is why it was included. It's a reception section about the comic, not the author.--Thrindel ^Talk 17:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And Tim Buckleys art skills affect the reception of which comic...? exactly --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I really can't possibly see where you're coming from here. If Gabe is referring to the artist of this comic, it IS relevant, as far as I can see. Gekedo (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I see the point you're making Gekedo, but I think we're looking at the statement differently. To me it looks like his opinion of the artist, and it's being added to a reception section about how the comic is received. Yes, perhaps the two are linked, but Buckley is also an artist outside of CAD. Krahulik's comment lacks any real substance or explanation. If he had said "I think the art in the comic is criminal" then there'd be no argument. He'd clearly be expressing that he doesn't enjoy the artwork in the comic (albeit in a crude and insulting fashion). But his comment as stands is a hair's breadth away from "I don't like the guy". What next, we add Tycho's "I think he's the antichrist" comment? I'm having trouble seeing how these sort of additions benefit the article, which is supposed to be about the comic strip, not whether or not these two guys like the artist or not.--Thrindel ^Talk 22:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You are going to have to come to the realization that this comic has more critics than fans among it's peers. There is ample reason to add in the entire section of that interview that deals with the comic, but I am content that the comment about the author's art is both pertinent and warranted. The artist's sole entry in Wikipedia is the article for their comic. The artist mention is the sole artist for the comic. Your arguements appear to be verging on nitpicking and purposefully not seeing the obvious. Their art has come under attack before, there is no reason not to mention it. Nilzy (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Trouble-making user Thrindel

I believe an action should be taken against this "Thrindel" person. He tries to control this page and has even engaged in a few edit wars, as proven by the history. --dicttrshp ^talk 00:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a few routes you can go here:

• If you believe that there is a long-term problem with the user that you and at least one other user have tried but failed to solve, you could consider opening a request for comment on user conduct.
• If you believe that this is primarily a content dispute - i.e. a dispute over the content of the article, rather than one about editor conduct - you could follow the dispute resolution path, probably beginning with a request for comment on content issues and then proceeding to mediation if necessary.
• If you believe that he has engaged in short-term blockable behaviour, you could bring it up at the administrators' incidents noticeboard, with evidence of which policies he has broken. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• He constantly edits this article (although in the last weeks his obsession watered down a lot), sometimes even in a disruptive manner. I support reverting all-out trolling but some additions are arbitrarily removed, as seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ctrl%2BAlt%2BDel&diff=228919164&oldid=228916776

The edit was legit (although with some unnecessary comment), yet it was

taken out completely. On a related note, users who have engaged in vandalism and trolling campaigns against this article and against Thrindel should also be banned. --dicttrshp ^talk 01:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at that link, I think it was well within the bounds of editorial discretion, and watching this talk page I haven't seen anything like a consensus to leave that material in. I think it was a normal R portion of the WP:BRD model. No problems there. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well there's still the possibility it's a single purpose account. Nearly all of thrindel's edits are to this article, its talk page, or reverting vandalism in other pages (maybe like some vandals make lots of trivial edits before vandalizing). --dicttrshp ^talk 00:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Being a single purpose account isn't a blockable offense. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

But it's generally regarded as unseemly. Given the subject, and the alleged behavior of Buckley regarding this article and those of his "peers", it becomes suspicious. DarkAudit (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a potentially worrying subject, but there is no evidence to support the suggestion. If you disagree with Thrindel's input then make counterarguements, don't try to disparage his name.Nilzy (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Events, interviews and public appearances

Nothing in this section, with the possible exception of Digital Overload, is relevant to this article. I can barely see how they'd be relevant if the article was about the author. I'd like a good reason for why they should be kept in or they will be removed.Nilzy (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

They are relevant to the notability the comic has achieved, that the author is asked to lecture about the comic at a college, or asked to provide his opinion as the writer of a video game comic to an article on CBS about video game violence. Both are directly linked to the comic, and his role as the comic's author. They are also properly sourced.--Thrindel ^Talk 20:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The author giving a university lecture and an interview with a website about Jack Thompson's opinions on videogame violence are flotsam. It sounds like unabashed crowing. If you wish to start up a page relating to the author then feel free to include them there. As it is, this has little to nothing to do with the comic.Nilzy (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Nilzy, please don't start just whittling this article away piecemeal. It can't be done both ways- you can't, in one instance, say "this comment is about the author, but it applies to the comic and the article" and in another instance say "oh, these are just things the author has done, and they don't have anything to do with the comic". These are not just random facts about the author's personal life, they are directly related to the comic, the recognition the comic has achieved, and his role as its creator.

I disagree that the author needs his own Wiki page. He hasn't done anything, that I'm aware of, outside of CtrlAltDel that is notable. Anything notable about CtrlAltDel can simply be added to this article about CtrlAltDel. That includes (as apparently has been decided) things that regard the author in the capacity of being the strip's creator. Being invited to lecture at a university, or having CBS ask your opinion are not everyday things. CBS did not ask his opinion just for the hell of it, they asked his opinion because (and it says this in the article), due to his comic, they viewed him as not only a gamer, but as "a member of video game culture". That's because of his work on the comic. Same thing with the university lecture, I would imagine.

Furthermore, they are solidly sourced, and presented in a NPOV fashion. Nobody is "crowing" over anything. The article simply presents information (interesting and pertinent information at that) related to CtrlAltDel. Could the article survive without it? Of course. But does having it there benefit the overall article? Yes. It doesn't need to be removed just because it's not about how someone thinks its the "antichrist".--Thrindel ^Talk 21:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Even saying that, information like "blah blah gave a lecture at wherever on whatever" just isn't information one would normally find in a wiki article, fair enough if he was giving a lecture on drawing the way he does or whatever, but giving a lecture on some tool? Come on. It doesn't belong in this, or any article. I believe you commented on someone else's motives as well. Don't do that. --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What tool? "Buckley will share his experiences and the stories behind his online comic strip." from the first source "Speaking of "in a few weeks", I'll be giving a lecture at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute down in Troy, NY on the 19th . I'll be talking about creating and running the comic strip." from the second source.--Thrindel ^Talk 22:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The CBSnews interview should be removed or placed on a page about the author, it has no relation to the comic itself. The university talk I see no problem with remaining unless a Tim Buckley page is reopened. Then it would be better suited there. Thrinsel (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As there is no seperate page for Tim Buckley, and the disambig. page points here for people searching for him, the minor, sourced information is pertinent, as they all relate to cad either directly, or from the fame of it. If there was a seperate page for TIm Buckley then they would be more suited there, but until such a page exists for more than a few edits, and without any blp violations, the few sourced notable appearances should remain in the article. Perhaps the title should be changed slightly to indicate they are appearances of the author, and not of the comic. Knowledgeum :  Talk  20:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on. They give absolutely NOTHING to this article, and I imagine upon thinking about it that "information" like "Tim buckley gave a lecture" wouldn't even fit in an article of Tim Buckley! The only reason I can see this being kept is purely for the article to retain one of its few outside sources. Instead of trying to find a place for every small piece of pointless information, we should be trying to bulk out the more appropriate information. As I've said, it has no place on this article, and I stand by that. --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Some points.

There is no "whittling away of the article piecemeal." There is no reason for me to arbitrarily remove parts of this article I dislike. Nor is there a reason to be sympathetic to your views, Thrindel. There is a marked difference between noted and repeated criticism from a peer on an artist's artwork when he is the sole artist on the article, and documentation of the artist speaking on a website about a matter completely unrelated to the article. Unless you wish to purport that the article itself is in fact a deep and longrunning criticism of the nature and effect of videogame violence. The articles in question are sourced yes, but this does not make them relevant. They do not have to be worded in a particular manner to sound like flattery; their inclusion in a document where they are completely irrelevant but for that reason is evidence of that. Saying that speaking at a university is kept in "because it denotes the fame of the comic" is flattery. There are no such examples of similar flotsam on the Penny Arcade or PVP pages, or indeed any other article of similar note. Furthermore, there is obviously no concensus on them being kept in and by now several users on both this page and the history page have expressed concern over both this and the content of the pieces. There is no reason not to keep the Digital Overload segment, as that is indeed pertinent. A random interview on videogame violence bears no connection to the comic; the author could be giving a lecture on Neo-Nazi discrimination and it would not be relevant. If he were talking about the article itself it may be relevant but a random interview is still not pertinent to the article. If he had been asked to speak about the article itself, then yes, absolutely this would have been pertinent. It is not.

Secondly, as previously stated there is no reason not to make a page for the author himself and include these details there. You do not wish to. That is your opinion, but that is not a defense to keep these articles in.

Thirdly the segment itself should, as has been said and has in fact been done at least once, be renamed. Nilzy (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ctrl-Alt-Del attended their first convention as a Guest of Honor, ConnectiCon, in the summer of 2003, along with other notable online comics 8-bit Theater, and MacHall. Guests of Honor at ConnectiCon participate in events, including informational panels/workshops about their work, demos on how they create their work, and their forthcoming work.

Was invited to attend again in 2004, with notable online comics, VGCats, SluggyFreelance, 8-Bit Theater, MacHall, Scary-go-round, Diesel Sweeties, Applegeeks, among others.

Attended ConnectiCon again in 2005 and was one of the primary drivers behind the save ConnectiCon campaign, after some severe miscommunication and understandings between the organizers of the event and the group of organizers included Applegeeks, MacHall, 8-bit Theater, VGCats, Least I Could Do, Devil's Panties, ZeStuff, and numerous other sites, which raised nearly $35,000 in just 9 days using a viral online campaign started by online comic creators to save the only convention dedicated to supporting and promoting their medium.

Took a break from conventions in 2006 and 2007 to focus on Digital Overload.

Ctrl-Alt-Del also attended ConnectiCon as a guest of honor in 2008.ConnectiCon (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Analog and D-Pad

Is this still ongoing? All I can find information on is the first issue from early 2007, I'm wondering whether this section needs updating. I think it's well worth keeping in, but it needs more info.Nilzy (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a second issue [19], but I can't find when it was released. Might have been this year. Nor have I heard anything about it being canceled/stopped.--Thrindel ^Talk 21:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The second issue came out 2nd of april, and the third was scheduled to be released shortly after, but has not materialized. [20] [21]. Knowledgeum :  Talk  22:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(Relative) Lack of criticism of subject matter

As I stated on the 4th August (Near the bottom of the criticism segment), I feel, and I quote:

"Critisism by others who are in the field should be perfectly acceptable, as it constitutes the closest we can get to a work being reviewed by its peers. (Ben Crowshaw included, even though ZP is what he is now known for) either:

   * In posts by them on their forums/news sections (note: other forum members do not count)
   * Either directly, or through allusion in an established webcomic
   * Personal blog posts by webcomic authors critising a particular person in the field's work.

At the very least, if sources cannot be taken from a self-published website, the webcomics main pages included, to provide critical views held by the peer's of the subject of the article, then they should note be allowed to flesh out the article beyond the basics (for webcomics this would be the characters, and any arcs, but anything beyond that, e.g., Penny Arcade's "Child's Play", would have to have information acquired from a different source.)

For instance, If Randall Munroe of xkcd writes on his "blag" about the faults of CAD, this should be seen as a usable source, as the criticism comes from someone established in the same, or in a similar field and, as I mentioned above, constitutes something similar to the work being reviewed by the peers of the articles subject matter. forum posts by those in a notable position in the field should also be considered, however, those by other members of their forum should not, unless they are also established Webcomic artists and have been proven as being so. this way, we can make sure that an article would be able to portray criticisms from others in the field. This way, we can make sure that articles on many niche fields are much more balanced."

Now, while Thrindel has managed to explain away this point previously (and others just as strong and as articulate) by making reference to screeds of Wiki legislature, I feel that he has forgotten the rule which (judging by the explanatory essay on said rule, was "The first rule they considered") is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

In my opinion, I feel that the limitations that the SPS rule enforces on this article, amongst others in similarly niché fields far outweigh its benefits in certain parts. most notably, the criticism section of this article. due to this, I feel that any criticisms of the work in question, by the creator of the work's peers:

   * In posts by them on their forums/news sections (note: other forum members do not count)
   * Either directly, or through allusion in an established webcomic
   * Personal blog posts by webcomic authors critising a particular person in the field's work.

should placed in the article's criticism section should be protected by "Ignore all rules" on the grounds that, in parts of this particular article, SPS is at a detriment to the informativeness of this article, and by extension, wikipedia as a whole. 78.148.131.226 (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the appropriate place to campaign for sweeping changes to Wikipedia's policies. You're also glossing over the wide array of policies (WP:V, WP:N, WP:BLP) intended to keep Wikipedia rooted in verifiable, unbiased facts, and prevent it from becoming a giant collection of various people's opinions about various things.--Thrindel ^Talk 05:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that I was campaigning for change any more, and as said, rules and polices get in the way of improving the article, the should be ignored according to the ignore all rules policy, which goes above and beyond all others. if the content isn't up to wiki quality standards (posts by jimbo jones of 378, no relation avenue on a webcomic's forum, as opposed to say, a post made by a webcomic artist on their own blog), then I am perfectly sure that it will be removed, but SPS should be ignored here, where the rule actively acts in to the detriment of this article being over-weighted to the positive; and anyway, the webcomic artists' blogs for the most part are verifable to be theirs, and the blogs are notable enough in their own field and following for WP:V and WP:N to not be a significant problem. WP:BLP only comes in to it if someone were to post Buckley's home address, or other sensitive information which would have no place in an encyclopaedic article; not a legitimate criticism of his work

78.148.131.226 (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is not "overweighted to the positive". If you see some language that you feel is biased in some way, then present it here and we can discuss some alternate wording. But skimming over the article, I don't see where you're getting "overweighted to the positive" especially when the only opinions presented in the article are negative.

I disagree that we need to start ignoring Wikipedia policies just so that we can add some random webcomic artists saying "I don't like this comic". That doesn't improve the article in any way. If their opinions were really that notable, we'd have appropriate third party sources for them. Just because someone gains some notoriety for a website they run, doesn't make their opinions notable, even in similar fields.--Thrindel ^Talk 09:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We're not adding random webcomic artists saying "I don't like this comic" though. We are adding comments on the material made by others in the field, which, without ignoring WP:SPS we cannot do as, despite your claims to the contrary, would have little in the way of third party coverage as the webcomics field is a niché genre; Denial of that point is very, very naive.

yes the language may be somewhat balanced at the moment, but knowing this article's history, I doubt it will stay that way for very long, which is why I am trying to make WP:IAR prominent on this page before any edits take place. plus, ignoring SPS would work both ways, if CAD is praised on a prominent webcomic artist's blog, then it could go on here as well. Besides that, the reception shown barely scratches the surface of some of the criticisms made of CAD.

N.B. I wish to make clear that the comment about bias towards the positive was made after a glance at the article, was coloured slightly by reads of previous edits was unrepresentative of the article. that was a mistake. however, the main focus of this section (protection for Criticism or praise made by notable artists in the genre under WP:IAR ) is still a valid one. 78.148.131.226 (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The article already has a 3:1 negative ratio in the reception section, only 2 of the 8 sentances are posative, with the remaining ones being negative. Including every negative and posative mention from any and every source just turns wikipedia into a giant collection of anyone and everyones opinion and dilutes the effort. If anything we need more sourced notable posative elements in the reception section, not non-notable sps off the wall rants by anyone with a wacom tablet and an internet connection. Knowledgeum :  Talk  22:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Positive mentions? CAD? I kid I kid, but in all seriousness, its negatives VASTLY outweigh its positives. I guess the article does a somewhat good job of showing that. --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems we already have the criticisms leveed against CAD by its peers included. If you can bring up some new ones I'm sure everyone would be happy to discuss the merits of their addition. And if people really want to find negative opinions they need only type "ctrl alt del is awful" into google and the first post will lead them to a 200+ forum thread full of criticism. --Thrinsel (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the rules the OP posted here, we can't add refs when it's a forum - yet there's a ref or two in the article relating back to the CADforum! Is it some kind of double standard, or did whoever added it just not notice? It can't work one way and not the other --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to point them out then, since none of the 36 refs point back to the forum, and doing a source search doesnt find "forum" either. Knowledgeum :  Talk  17:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Parodies

Sorry, why can't these be added? Last time I checked, they were by far more notable web comics and the majority wanted them added - WITH GOOD REASON as well. The VG Cats and C&H ones should be added, in particular. --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The comments/criticisms from experts in the field, from notable subjects/third party sources, have been added to the article. Creating a webcomic doesn't make someone an "expert" in the field, nor does it make their opinions on the subject notable. Political cartoons in newspapers far more notable than webcomics parody subjects far more notable than webcomics every day, and yet we're not filling up various articles with lists of these parodies. In general, they're not that important or notable. To reiterate my earlier point, we don't add a link to the Super Mario Bros article every time a gaming webcomic parodies the game.

If a parody is accompanied by something notable, then we'd definitely add it. As an example, I'd offer Penny Arcade's Strawberry Shortcake comic strip. Mention of it is listed on the Strawberry Shortcake article, not just because Penny Arcade parodied it, but because there was a documented legal controversy surrounding it.--Thrindel ^Talk 19:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously "majority wanted them added" thats funny because the section still on this page doesnt have any majority concensus for them being included, so what has changed since then? Nothing. Parodies are nothing more than non-notable cruft. The VGCats one has been done to death, many many times on this page and there is nothing new being brought to the table on that one. To save my breath and keyboard batteries I'll just say read the previous comments on this page, if you have some groundbreaking NEW information or something then present it here so NEW discussion can take place on the NEW information. Knowledgeum :  Talk  20:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a general "Parodies" section, but a section about the notorious "Miscarriage" storyline is a serious consideration. I don't think any other comic has received such an enormous amount of attention from one single comic. That storyline alone has become one of the defining features of the comic, has generated an enormous amount of controversy and parody and the the Krahulik interview actually contains mention of it directly. I'm sure further peer comment wouldn't be hard to find.Nilzy (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The article has mentions from two notable subjects, and third party publications, that directly refer to the topic of that story arc. Taking a number of standalone parodies and using them to say "this has become one of the defining features of the comic" or "has generated an enormous about of controversy" is synthesis, a form of original research. Taking multiple sources and combining them to make a statement which is not explicitly reached in any of the sources. There may have indeed been a lot of controversy about the story on a certain level, but that controversy doesn't seem to exist on the level of critical review from established experts or third party sources. The ones that are on that level are already listed.--Thrindel ^Talk 07:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. There is a virtual library of parody of the article online from other webcomics and photoshops and so forth relating to one strip alone, there are essays written on the storyline both praising it and ridiculing it, from peers, critics and the general public, far more than the few listed as you falsely claim. Considering you were not in favour of those few being listed considering you didn't consider them relevant this is an interesting view for you to take. It is a large source of debate. It was the first webcomic to take such an unusual direction with it's story and theme, and is famous for doing so. To deny this is either embarassment or ignorance.Nilzy (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an essay from a notable comic critic/expert and third party source? An actual critical evaluation on the subject from a credible, published expert in the field, not "the general public's photoshops for lulz" on some forum or blog somewhere?--Thrindel ^Talk 22:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't be facetious, an essay is not required here nor in any other part of the article. Peer comment exists in abundance whether certain editors wish to be obtuse about their existence or not.Nilzy (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Facetious how? You said there had been essays written by notable critics and experts, I was asking if you had one to present as a source for discussion.--Thrindel ^Talk 19:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Critics, yes. You were the one who brought up the term "expert." If it is possible for yout to point out a webcomic "expert" then please, do so, as I have never met one.Nilzy (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

When I look at the "Bee Arrow Up" section, I see 2 users disagreeing and 3 wanting it added - with Thrindel pushing the "it's not criticism" card AGAIN, and Knowledgeum missing the point completely. No one said it WAS criticism, it's a bit of FUN that adds to the notability of the comic in question. And since it's from a rival, I'm guessing it is in fact notable. I can only imagine what Wikipedia Guideline I'm going to have thrown down my throat now...--A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing notability with popularity. Creating a parody of something doesn't add to its notability unless there is something there that makes it worth mentioning. To use the example from earlier, the Penny Arcade Strawberry Shortcake comic mention would not be in the Strawberry Shortcake article if it had just been a regular old comic. That there was a bit of a legal fiasco which then made the parody notable (worth mentioning). Penny Arcade, CtrlAltDel, VGCats etc have parodied hundreds of video games, and I wouldn't say that those parodies contribute to the notability of those games. I certainly wouldn't add a link to them in the game's wiki article.--Thrindel ^Talk 07:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, did Thrindel just compare CAD to Mario Bros? CAD has a few parodies that can reflect its importance, and he doesn't want it added? --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't comparing the two, I was giving an example of how parodies alone are not generally considered important or notable, by pointing out that Mario (or Super Marios Bros), one of the most recognized video game characters in popular culture, has no fan-crufty list of various parodies, of which there have no doubt been hundreds across all sorts of different media. An encyclopedia article is meant to be a summary of important, accepted knowledge on a subject, not an exhaustive list of every possible detail.--Thrindel ^Talk 07:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly my point; a general parody section is too vague. One dealing with the notorious storyline already mentioned however is much more focused and pertinent.Nilzy (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I agree with Nilzy's sentiment here. The only problem is going to be finding sources that this group will accept as reliable. Trvsdrlng (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the medium and sources already used peer criticism would be the most apt. This is an article about a webcomic, it doesn't require a thesis to prove an arguement.Nilzy (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with Nilzy on this --A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is an article about a webcomic, and doesn't require a thesis, but its content still has to meet various Wiki guidelines and standards. But there's no point in arguing over sources you haven't presented.--Thrindel ^Talk 19:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No one has suggested adding material that doesn't fit with Wiki Policy and so good faith is assumed until such time as it is and can be debated by the public. At this point you should be reminded that you are not the personal arbiter for this page, and material does not have to meet with your personal agreement in order for it to enter.Nilzy (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

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) 11:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Tags

The article has exactly one meaningful independent third-party sourced footnote, and that one refers to Buckley making $7000 from his web-comic -- which is the opposite of notability. Lots of footnotes, but it's nearly all wikipuffery or self-references to the comic strip. THF (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This article does not have the references needed to suggest that it meets the notability requirements. It essentially seems rather like an extension of a fansite, as opposed to an encyclopedic entry. Additional relevant, respected third-party sources are needed to validate this article - right now, it basically has none. Fuzzygenius (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing certain tags may mean removing certain sections in their entirety, the "public appearances" section springing to mind. Any reccomendations for tags to be removed or replacement footnotes? Nilzy (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

CAD Premium

My note on the dissolution of the premium section was removed as forums are not a reliable source. But when the source is the CAD forums and the source is Tim Buckley himself wouldn't that warrent inclusion? --Thrinsel (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit - scratch that. Works now. Let's see how it can be reworded... --Human.v2.0 (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm surprised the CAD Premium section lasted as long as it did. Why didn't anyone bring this up before? It's been inactive for ages --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Mostly because I just don't really care about CAD-P, and I would assume that most other people didn't notice it for similar reasons. Unfortunately most of the folks that would have picked up on this earlier are, well, rabid fans unable to get through the message of WP:NPOV. These folks seem to be largely removed as an issue to the Wiki, but the fact remains that the more neutral-leaning folks just simply haven't paid attention to this feature. Also, the end of CAD Premium wasn't exactly loudly announced and the site has undergone an overhaul recently so things might have been assumed to be just moved into less noticeable regions.

As an aside, stuff like this happens on Wikipedia all the time. No matter how many users have however many articles watched, the fact remains that few people periodically check stuff like this when it's covered in a wiki. I personally try to keep things up to date in a few articles, but I'm sure that if I checked all of them for accuracy based on changes in the world since previous edits I would find more than a few things that have slipped through the cracks.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

protection?

Why is this page protected? I only see one anonymous IP vandalizing the page before it was indefinitely protected. Also, sarcasticidealist has left wikipedia so he cannot be asked about it. Also, if this is the wrong place to ask this quesiton, I apologize - DaoKaioshin (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

- I've honestly no idea. The initial "shitstorm" (as the internet seems to call it) is long over and the page protection doesn't seem to be doing much, except keeping out new ideas on how to improve this awful article. --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected. Its highly inappropriate to have both the article and the talk page semi'd: effectively disenfranchising anons and new users. –xeno ^talk 18:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

- I don't quite understand why Mr. Buckley feels that he needs to protect his comic's wiki page from criticisms voiced by sources be they officially backed or not... I mean... This is wikipedia. Is it that important what somebody writes down in a wikipedia article? Matrixman124 (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that this is relevant to this section, but to my knowledge there have never been examples of Buckley influencing this page directly (at least in any kind of reliable sense). There have been more than a few instances, though, when IPs of people adding criticism have been blocked from the CAD forums, but I was never able to track down sufficient evidence on those.

But it is understandable, I guess. No one likes a critic, and it's understandable for someone to take it personally. One could wish that he would not take things quite so personally, but what are you going to do? --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess so. But it still perplexes me. I've never heard of wikipedia leading to somebody's reputation being torn apart. For example, let's say that on another webcomic has a wiki article where someone posts criticisms and attacks on the work and its creator(s). I don't think there's a need for said creator to set up protection for their wikipedia article. It'll be removed either way. There's nothing that'll be potentially damaging by just leaving it there. It's wikipedia and wikipedia has a tendency of cleaning itself up quite efficiently. Just trying to make a point, I guess. *shrugs* - Matrixman124 (talk)03:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the boys from Penny Arcade voiced their opinions on the Wikipedia article. They wanted to add something as a surprise to their fanbase, so when they looked on the Wikipedia page they found it. The information they edited in was removed almost immediately and they wrote a pretty angry blog detailing it.

Also, in my younger days, I spammed a few articles with my IP and CAD was one of them. I couldn't get on the forums after that, it said I was banned. Strange "coincidence", eh? He probably keeps an eye on the page, the internet seems to build him up as someone who can't take negative exposure --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

competition / artist conflict

I have spent the better part of the morning reading through all of the content of the various talk and edit summaries for this article, and I am astonished. I think it's been going on long enough people have lost sight of the original arguments. The irony is that the arguments that have happened between artists in the medium of web comic (specifically the above noted arguments between Buckley and the Penny Arcade creators) have become subject matter for even more baseless and pointless arguments. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and as a neutral source, I don't see a problem with documenting those opinions. The only problem is the following (quoted from WP:Verifiability) : "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on _rumors and personal opinions_." We see the same conflict between artists in every medium. Graphic Novels have Alan Moore vs. Frank Miller. Recently, another web comic creator (Ryan Sohmer of Least I Could Do) pointed out the conflict between gaming and non-gaming web comics. The issue therefore becomes: while these are real and true conflicts, they are populated on both sides by people who consciously (and subconsciously) wish for their side to "win." In this case, in a matter of opinion, there are no winners. Everyone comes out covered in muck. The only solution is to simply adhere to the guidelines. You can document the opinion of an artist about another artist, but ONLY on that artist's page (if it exists, which in this case it does not) and provided it is from a verifiable source (which due to personal opinion and subjectivity precludes most blogs, and most forums, because of the lack of fact-checking). So, obeying wikipedia's guidelines, I think that the comment had to do with the artist, but because of something the artist did in his comic (the miscarriage plot). As long as it's put in that context, and cited to appropriate interview page (which is a verifiable source of the quote), it's acceptable to document. But any judgement calls on how valid that opinion is are absolutely prohibited. On a personal note, I don't believe in artist competition. When South Park took a blind shot at Family Guy, fans who had enjoyed both shows polarized, and it cost both sides crossover audience. People who already preferred one or the other just strengthened their viewpoints, and I think the same thing has happened with Penny-Arcade and Ctrl+Alt+Del. I enjoy both for different reasons, but I have a hard time enjoying Penny-Arcade now that they've behaved in a way that at the very least could be considered infantile, and at the most hateful and jealous. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I'll quote the things said at the beginning of a talk page. " Be polite - Assume good faith - Avoid personal attacks -Be welcoming." I think if you can't obey all four of those, take a break. You're too personally invested, and you'll make decisions based on your own opinions, which is NOT your job as an editor here. --NateDSaint (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, not so sound rude, but how is this relevant to any current discussion topics or current proposed alterations to the article? I don't think you're incorrect, it's just that what you are saying doesn't seem to cover any new ground and the topics it relates to are months old (and largely have been brought to a close). --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not seeming timely. I found this article talk page via links from forums on both sides of the issue dated as early as yesterday. I won't mention the names of those forums to avoid potentially outing any editors in the next 24 hours, or giving them a reason to justify their posting of this talk page. It was an attempt to be a voice of reason before vandalism inevitably occurred. --NateDSaint (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't really say that I care what arguments are being discussed on whatever sides or whatever forums; it's largely irrelevant. So is the prospect of any vandalism; vandalism takes moments to revert and is rather easy to deal with.

Don't take my initial comment as being rude, which I suppose it might seem more so if it is largely directed at "visiting parties", so to speak. Assumed it was directed at the months-old discussions involving critical review sections. While I'm not concerned with any "visiting parties", I would recommend them to just not cause trouble. This isn't 4Chan, after all. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't take what you said as being rude, but perhaps a bit ironic, in that you claimed my message was unnecessary and then went on to say that discussion of this topic is pointless anyway, as vandalism and original research should just be reverted instead of discussed... in your discussion of what I said. : ) In any case, this isn't a forum, and I didn't mean to grandstand or point out my own opinions, but rather suggest that future changes be based on verification of these sources, and then objective decisions on whether to report them. There is still a good bit of discussion on NEW topics (not just the miscarriage episode) that are becoming contentious issues in the webcomic community. In any case, just bringing up the topic and reminding people of the suggestion to be polite, welcome, avoid personal attacks (including against your subject matter in this case) and to assume good faith, which was another issue discussed further up (though I assume since it hasn't been brought up much lately it's either resolved or quiet enough to be considered resolved). Thanks for the polite discussion, in any case. --NateDSaint (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if you haven't, you might take note of the previous discussion both still here and in the archive. I've personally tried to include more of the material that falls towards "criticism" simply based on the fact that it is out there and would be an inaccurate representation of the subject to do so. The trouble is that I also work within the Wikipedia guidelines, and in this regard the guidelines decidedly work against me. These leanings have also been, how shall we put it, "abused" by other editors in the past in regards to this article in particular (though it is nothing rare in general).

At any rate, yes, vandalism to the main page (and the recent vandal edit on the talk page that I removed) gets reverted. Personally, if there is merit to the edit I will either note that a source is needed or that should be brought to the talk page. Rational discussion doesn't much happen here, though, and a majority of people just come in here to drop an insult or two.

I'm pressed for time or I would elaborate more. At any rate, things are not black and white, but there are more shades of gray for people that don't make a habit of vandalism or near-vandalism, and topics that people put thought into while discussing will generally get more elaborate feedback. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How do I edit this page?

I can't find the edit link, like on normal pages and I wanted to add some references.

In this section: In 2004 Ctrl+Alt+Del was nominated for the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards Outstanding Gaming Comic award.[citation needed] In 2005 it once again received this nomination,[citation needed] as well as a nomination for Outstanding Comic.[citation needed]

If you go to the page off the WCOGC wiki page it goes to the normal web page and then you can view all there archives. There is this link that says CAD was notminated in 2004 for Oustanding Gaming Comic: http://www.ccawards.com/2004.htm And then in 2005 for the 2 awards: http://www.ccawards.com/2005.htm

Ummm... so if you can like edit thme or tell me how to add stuff in it would be cool cause it said if you cant get refenrence it might get deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodore Therone (talk • contribs) 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Because of vandalism problems, the article has been protected so that only autoconfirmed accounts can edit it. Generally speaking, you should be autoconfirmed after you've been around four days (which isn't an issue for you, since you've been around for four years) and have made ten edits. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I created that account ages ago and when i tired to register it said I already existsed. Anyway, I can only view the source, can some one else add my edit or is there another button I am missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodore Therone (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, you should be able to edit the page once you have made ten edits. Right now, you have six. Maybe go correct some spelling errors in a few articles, or something? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I added in my referenceds and stuff, and added the rss feed too. So how do you remove the box at the top of the page saying that stuff, caus eit doenst look very professional and stuff and Tim is like a professional webcomic artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodore Therone (talk • contribs) 15:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)