Talk:Cyanide & Happiness

I don't know if Wikipedia has some kind of vote-for-unprotection template (or policy?), so I used Editprotected instead:

This webcomic may not have met Wikipedia's notability requirements in April (when it was deleted), but it certianly does in September (2006). And look at all the people, below, who have come here expecting Wikipedia to have information on it.

Vote for unprotection so it can be re-created (or a mod could just come by, see all the people who already think it should be unprotected, and do so):

Unprotect --60.240.227.27 10:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Declined. Open a new case at Wikipedia:Deletion review please. {editprotected} is strictly for clerical edits on protected articles only. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Mention

This is worth a mention Shougunner (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? Rmh792 (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WARNING

I recieved a virus from the website yesterday, and again today. I was on just a few days ago and it was fine but yesterday and today I got a virus. Seeing as how it happened twice I don't think it is a coincidence. Risingers 06:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

- Well it could simply be simply confusing your anti-virus software. Weeliljimmy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weeliljimmy (talk • contribs) 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've used the website dozens of times, and never had any problems. Like Weeliljimmy said, it probably was just your anti-virus throwing up a false alert. bernlin2000 ∞ 04:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have used the site alot and when I say alot I mean ALOT, but I havent gotten a single virus let alone anything like that.Halo legend 00 04:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Poor Quality Article

Please rewrite.

75.28.39.116 05:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)El Homo

be more specific...jerkoff66.167.203.112 (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Unprotecting this page

I certainly think that this page should be unprotected, but I want to do it the right way. If we bring it to Deletion Review too soon or don't make a suffieicent argument of it and it fails, then moderators would be more likely to ignore future attempts to make an article. So I suggest a twofold approach: Write an article in somebody's userspace that establishes it's notability and shows that a useful and NPOV article can be written about the subject, and find evidence of it's popularity.

The starting article will be here: User:TexasDex/Cyanide and Happiness

• 300,000 Google hits, including 600+ unique hits.
• Alexa rank of explosm.net is 9,943 (smaller is better)

Webcomics that are less popular, or of comparable popularity (according to Alexa.com), but still have articles:

1. Queen of Wands, Alexa rank peaked about 40,000
2. Soap on a Rope, rank 2,000,000
3. Something Positive, currently 14,000, peaked at about 10,000.
4. Sexy Losers, rank peaked at about 20,000.
5. Todd and Penguin, rank about 1,000,000

Certainly I'm not saying these other articles should be deleted, but it does put this in prespective.

• Comic on Orange Wednesdays, at Orange SA
• Seen frequently on livejournal, xanga, independent blogs, etc.

There's definitely some case for the article there, but I think we should have a bit more (I'd especially like to find some uptight conservative websites that are horrified at it's content--partly for a source, but mostly because it would amuse me greatly to see some square's reaction to the comic--Think of the Children!). We also should have a good article written up and ready to copy or move into place when . When both of these parts are satisfactory to show that this deserves an article, then it can be taken to Deletion Review, with confidence. --TexasDex 16:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

---

• ridingnowhere85 — I would like this article to be open for creating and editing, but with good reason. When this talk page was up, it mentioned lack of notability, quality of art, and content of the comic itself. As an unbiased source of information, quality and content should be a non-issue. Notability, however, can easily be argued. This comic has been around for over a year, and has more than a cult following. It is a very common "comment comic" on myspace and others, sells merchandise, and will have a booth at Comic-Con in San Diego next year. It is read every day by hundreds, if not thousands of people, and there should be a resource of information on it. If the bounds are removed, I'd take it upon myself to write a non-biased article, including criticism. ~Steve

Declined, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyanide and happiness (webcomic). —Mets501 (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This comic is amazingly popular at my school, where jokes are shared often before classes and at least 25 people I know check the site weekly. I would LIKE to know the history, and by an Admin blocking it because of his own preconceptions about it (even if they are correct) is against the point of wikipedia: which isn't the people (thank goodness for them, though, they make it all work) who devote a lot of time to it. It's for people who want to know something you can't find in Britannica!!! -soadaw

I fail to see why this article has been deleted, as Steve above mentioned, a un-biased encyclopaedia should not care about the content of the webcomic, rather the content of it's articles. I believe strongly that the decision to delete was ill-founded and should be rectified immediately. -Arby

I agreeNimrod1234 01:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to update on notability, this comic has been around for 18 months, and is now being used as an advertisement campaign for > orange wednesdaysas well as doing comic strips for The Sun.

I agree, we need an admin to review this. This comic is now huge.

Cubic.z 10:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

ive put that thing up the top now. the review thing was ages ago, i think the discussion needs to be reopened.

surly denying this page goes against what wikipedia stands for. Just because people do not like it doesn't mean there should not be an article on it. disappointing that even in wikipedia there is a power hungry admin

JaffaCakeLover 16:23, 22 August 2006 (BST)
I agree.
Jackass: The Movie has a page.
The Perry Bible Fellowship webcomic has a page.
South Park, of course, has several pages.
Even Pegging (sexual practice) has a page!
Why doesn't this webcomic have a page?

Nazipedia strikes again!

I definitely agree - Guy

Haha, you morons are laughable, this comic has been featured in the sun, yet the style thieving incoherent drivel that is 'Oh my gods' sports a rather large section here

I am finding that more and more wiki articles are being blocked because an admin doesn't like the page, which really goes against what wiki is all about... doesn't it. i mean if it really is so bad why can't wiki explain why it is so, surely wiki should write an unbiased article, from which the researcher can form their own opinion. It is not like the web site is not well used, certainly more so than some websites on wiki (I draw your attention to Pimpthatsnack.com), so why can wiki let an article on Cyanide and Happiness go ahead? more and more I am finding that wiki is becoming more and more "selective" with the pages it allows to create. IMO this runs against what wiki is for, I find wiki an excellent source of obscure information, but obviously only for information that the admin find suitable/personally like. I find this hypocrisy sad, on the one hand we have an excellent web page to get information on just about anything, on the other we have administrators that disallow certain articles on obvious biased opions.

---

I think it's ludicrous that there is an article for leekspin.com (which I consider a good thing) yet there isn't one for this. Cyanide and Happiness is a unique, funny, and reasonably popular web comic, and I see no true reason for which it shouldn't exist. I believe that Wikipedia is here to inform, even if such information is deemed "pointless." Gleeok 08:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Article recreation

I've noticed in many cases an article is created before the right time. This appears to be what happened here. An article was created before the strip was fully popular, and it was deleted (perhaps rightly so) because it wasn't notable enough yet. But a few months later, I see it rather frequently on LiveJournal, myspace, and xanga. If you're curious, most of the 291,000 google hits are from social networking or blog sites, meaning that although it seems like the number of "unique results" is low, this is a popular strip with a very large following (and for comparison, out of the ~742 million results for "Microsoft", Google presently returns 552 "unique" results). I came to Wikipedia, as I often do, seeking information about this comic, and I was rather disappointed to find not only a deleted article, but one that was protected from recreation. I consider Wikipedia's strong coverage of internet memes and fads to be a good thing, not a bad thing as some people seem to think. And whatever problems there may have been with the original article, I have no doubt that Wikipedians can fix them, especially since so many people cared enough to request that this article be created again. In summary: Admins! Tear down this Protection! --TexasDex 13:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all the aguments here, it was stated on explosm.net that the average webtraffic on cyanide and happiness is 500 000 daily. -Arby

I fail to see why this webcomic is deleted for being non-notable when there are a number of webcomics which are arguably less notable such as Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, Rob and Elliot, Multiplex and Digital Purgatory, all of which have their own Wikipedia articles. It is ridiculous to claim that this webcomic isn't worthy of an article despite how crude or offensive one may find the content. RoryC 13:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• If you think there is compelling new evidence of notability, take it to deletion review. As it stands I do not hold out much hope of success; perhaps better to wait a bit longer. You are absolutely right that the creation of articles before their time is a common source of problems like this, and asking for a review after each hit on the site, as it were, is likely to increase resolve, so it is unquestionably best to wait until there is new, compelling and unequivoical evidence. Just zis Guy you know? 11:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

→ I fail to see how this article wouldn't pass the deletion review. If half a million hits a day isn't compelling enough, I have no idea what is. I'm willing to take this article there. Who stands with me? Ridingnowhere85 05:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• • The problem is that I brought this comic to deletion review only last month, and it failed to make it through. I'm not sure what the deal is. I think someone (other than me, again) should put it up again, and MAKE SURE you give reasons WHY C&H should have an article. The criteria shouldn't have too high. I think the number of people who have noticed the article's absense is proof that the webcomic is significant enough to be on Wikipedia. bernlin2000 ∞ 15:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a disgrace, Explosm/Cyanide and happiness definatly deserves an article, it is one of the largest webcomics around, with over 500,000 hits a day. How can you say that a site that popular does not warrant a page on this "unbiased" dictionary?

Orange Wednesdays Advert

It's a shame that I can't remember what happened in it (due to the excitment see), but there was a TV advert for the Orange Wednesdays promotion starring the C&H characters! JaffaCakeLover 00:45, 19 November 2006 (BST)

Ctrl+Alt+Del

The article for CAD(ctrl+alt+del)is a very detailed article for a webcomic. But alot of other webcomics people have never heard of have gotten a article to. These are the comparisons to Ctrl+Alt and Cyanide and Happiness

• Both have alot of car traffic,thousands of people a day
• Both have merchandise for sale
• Both can be frequantly seen on my myspace
• Both have been going for almost 2 years(CAD older)
• Both have a giant fanbase
• Both have a rapid forums with tons of members
• Both have animated versions of their comics (C&H ones are free)
• Both have blog-like website updates
• C&H acctuially has more comics
• Both have books released

So if CAD can have an article why cant Cyanide and Happiness?--Nimrod1234 22:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This guy's got the right idea. Why was it banned anyway? It doesnt look like it has content any worse than sites that are prominently featured throughout wikipedia 144.139.143.12 13:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Sammy

Im just saying that if this is just as notable as CAD then Cyanide and Happiness should have an article too. Its alot more notable then some webcomics that have pages.--Nimrod1234 11:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we haven't gotten just too all the juptillion and three wikipedia articles just yet. So the very existance of one or more arguably worse articles is not a postive argument. - brenneman ^{L} 11:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"Cyanide" undeleted?

I noticed today that this article is no longer "salted". Is it still being deleted. I posted the article as shown on TexasDex's userspace. bernlin2000 ∞ 04:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Someone's already trying to delete this article again. I don't understand the hostile attitude towards this webcomic. Is it because it lacks artistic sophistication? I find the crude drawings to be ironically funny. And, nevertheless, I think the characters show excellent expression. Anyway, that's all irrelevent:

This webcomic deserves its own article. Here is some statistics that some users in deletion review love to throw out regarding "google hits." I personally think basing an article topic's merit on hits from a search engine is misleading, and overall a poor reference. However: Cyanide and Happiness received 547,000 google hits. The webcomic Acts of Gord (which is on the list of webcomics on WP) has 529,000 google hits. Buzzer Beater received 326,000 hits. Earthsong received 223,000 hits. Loxie & Zoot received 16,400 hits. Misfile received 107,000 hits. I could go on, but it seems pointless. So either google hits are a poor source of info on "notability" or each of the above articles (which fell below the number of google hits of C&H) should be deleted, and speedily so. I may be wrong about this being black and white, but I'd like to hear some honest input. bernlin2000 ∞ 04:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

TexasDex's article has alot false information. Ill try to put together a better one for reserve. Also why dont we just put this up on deletion review? Rob DenBleyker(1 of the 4 C&H writers) is the creator of Joe Zombie.--Nimrod1234 15:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason is that we're waiting until we have a good article ready as well as a number of solid arguments about it's notability. I think we've mostly achieved the latter; please make whatever fixes you can to the article, especially adding sources and references. --TexasDex 16:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh, if an unfunny one-note joke like Shortpacked can have an article, then a legitimately funny comic such as C&H certainly deserves one.

Old AfD

--TexasDex 17:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Kris

Are you all sure that Kris is a man? Why does he picture himself as a woman in his webcomic, then? poopsix 08:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

He identifies himself as a male on his deviantart page. --ImmortalGoddezz 16:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Kris is a guy, and had never identified himself as a woman.-Nimrod1234 21:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen pictures of him at ComicCon and he's definitely a guy. 194.78.37.122 12:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well he has made comics involving himself and he is in fact a guy in them. --Deathtopplintheir40s 02:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

font

What font does Kris use?

 Um... I think he said he used "Kid Kosmic"

Joke?

"Recently the creators have been approached by an Irish filmmaker about making a series of live action shots based on the comic."

...seriously? Or is this just some somewhat subtle vandalism? Drexx 12:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be cool to watch! --Deathtopplintheir40s 02:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I think that the picture of the example comic is inappropriate. Perhaps we could change for a comic without swearing in it?

I would say that the comic panel is reasonably representative of the comic strip. Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored, see Wikipedia:Profanity. --TexasDex 11:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a comic with more swearing. Macktheknifeau 15:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the page needs a pic that isnt just an example of the comic styles. --Deathtopplintheir40s 02:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Site shutdown

Yesterday some editors started adding that the site had been shut down, or replaced with a generic ad landing site. I reverted at least one of them, and several others were reverted because when I attempted to access the site I had no problem viewing it. However as of this morning the site is no longer accessible to me. The cause of this discrepancy may be due to the slow propogation rate of DNS updates: When a DNS entry is changed to point a site at a different IP address it may take up to a day for the various levels of cache servers to update. Since according to Whois the domain is still registered by Matt Melvin I am guessing that there was an IP address change for some reason. The information should stay in the article pending further events or information.--TexasDex 11:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to revert the addition of 'the site shut down' information again. It has not. [1] "If you're able to access this page then well done! You're one of the lucky few who managed to avoid today's ongoing server troubles. We're having a couple of problems with the server at the moment meaning our hotlinks for sites such as Myspace aren't working, as well as this site not working for a lot of visitors at all. With a bit of luck however all should be restored to normal tommorow.

We may or may not have a comic tommorow depending on the troubles but shucks, we're trying! We're trying!"

Posted today on their forums by Dave. --ImmortalGoddezz 12:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm SCARED!!--Cowards 12:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Site is still being redirected to an add-site, I miss C&H! 76.205.94.161 16:19, 25 May 2007

^The above was me Jennerfirst 16:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)(UTC)

So you are saying it will be back up soon? --Jeff Bongi 07:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

How about instead of saying absolutely nothing you make a note about the server troubles instead? Wouldn't that make damn sense?

It's back for me now; how about you guys: [2]. Anyway, after the site does come back up (as I think it has), are we going to keep the info about the site shutdown, or are we just going to delete it from the page? Mrmoocow 21:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Bugger. Back down for me again. Mrmoocow 21:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's one of those shared-IP sites, too, so using the IP address (207.58.148.130) isn't going to help any. Haplolology 19:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not having problems anymore, there's no reason to keep writing that it is.

Fair use rationale for Image:Cape0002.jpg

Image:Cape0002.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

XKCD

Are explicit references to other online comics noteworthy? In today's strip, the teacher wrote x=k/(cd) on the board. samwaltz 03:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably not in this case. Artists/authors often pay homage to each other or do guest work. Should the references become common between the two, or a particular ref gains unusual attention, that would be a crossed threshold into notability. Nahum Reduta (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

C&H and Explosm

The article at the moment often confuses the topical comic and its host site. Distinction between the two should be made more explicit. (I don't yet believe that Explosm.net deserves its own page.) Nahum Reduta (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia

is notable or just interesting that they mention wiki? [3]♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Can everyone use the same format for references please? Thankyou. Larklight (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)