Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic)

Miscarriage 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)

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)

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 [1] 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 [2] 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)

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 [3] (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)

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)

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[[4]], 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[[5]], 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)