Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic)

Miscarriage, SERIOUSLY FUNNY!

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)

I really don't think we can not include the parodies of the funniest ever comic he's ever drawn. Or should that be THE only funny comic he's ever drawn, amrite? Any way wheres buckl- I mean Thirindel as theres a whole lot of insulting his, sorry, Buckley's comic going on here and no white knight to defend it beyond all reason.

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)

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)

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[6] and here[7], 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)

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[[8]], 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[[9]], 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)

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 [10] 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)

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)

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)

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 out other wikipedia editors. Knowledgeum :  Talk  17:42, 30 August 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)