Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic)

Attempt to imply criticism beyond what's in the sources

Re this edit: 1. The sources say nothing about it going from being liked to disliked. You are inferring that. At best, you are committing WP:OR. At worst, you're making shit up. 2. The sources do not mention "Numerous online columnists as well as and fellow webcomic artists". They mention one online columnist and two webcomic artists, both from the same webcomic. 3. The sources mention art quality, dialogue, and subject matter. Inserting "Everything from" suggests that that list isn't exhaustive which, as far as the sources say, it is. 4. The sources spell it "Antichrist", not "Antichirst". Steve Smith (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

First, semi-protecting due to vandalism? I thought we were attempting to discuss changes, clarify and resolve them. You definitely overreacted a bit.

Now to address your concerns...

1. I disagree, and will clarify in my next edit. From my point of view, winning a webcomics award 2 years in a row, only to not be nominated for 3 seems like waning popularity at the very least. Coupled with the Alexa ranking, and you begin to see a clear decrease in popularity and viewers.

2. 3 is numerous. Plus if you factor in the web comics awards and community as proof you have even more.

3. Overuse of dialogue, not just dialogue, and I will add more.

4. Agreed.

WRE451 (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

On the semi-protection issue, you might want to check the date on that - it was October 2008, and therefore certainly not in response to this concern (if it was in response to this concern, it would have been awfully ineffective, since you're quite capable of editing through semi-protection). On your points:

1. See what I said above: you are committing WP:OR. You are taking primary data and drawing inferences from it. You can say "It won X award two years in a row, but was not nominated the ensuing three years". You can say "According to Alexa, traffic etc. etc. etc.". You cannot say "Its popularity has waned", unless you have a source that says its popularity has waned.

2. One online columnist is not "numerous online columnists". In any event, "Numerous" is weaselly, especially when the exact number is so clear.

3. Yes, overuse of dialogue is supported by the sources. I cut out "overuse" primarily for stylistic reasons, but I acknowledge that it is supported by the source. Steve Smith (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Your Alexa rating link, and therefore a large portion of your argument, is flawed. Their website was recently updated, and during that update all traffic to the "www.ctrlaltdel-online.com" domain was forwarded to the "www.cad-comic.com" domain. Type in "www.ctrlaltdel-online.com" and you will see yourself forwarded to the second domain. You only searched for the first domain on Alexa. A search for www.cad-comic.com shows that not only has traffic to the website been steady, but a large spike that occurred at the exact same time the large drop in the other domain occurred Link. The reception section will need to be rewritten to remove that information and source. SantiagoSinner (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. WRE451 (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to "2"; it's not a terribly hard thing to put in additional references for "numerous". There are enough criticisms of various degree going back the past two years or so that as far as webcomics go this is "numerous". There are comments from columnists, webcomic artists, and various other individuals of no little regard ready to be had. Without going into too much petty detail, with the absence of of editors with implied or inferred motives of a less than neutral nature, I wouldn't think that inclusion of some of these would be a terribly hard thing.

Though just to clarify, how many individuals would you feel makes "numerous"? I don't believe there is an official standard (though, Wiki being what it is, I'm quite likely wrong), so it would seem to be something that requires editor consensus.

Aside from that, please have a little tact. "Making shit up" and making a non-ironic correction of the misspelling of "Antichrist" comes off as intentionally pedantic. Not something I usually have a problem with, but this article has had enough issues in the past. Please, tone it down and at least try to sound reasonable/professional/whatever when starting a topic here. Just refer to it as a POV/OR issue, and typos only require mention here if someone is deliberately/intentionally replacing an incorrect version in the article. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

On "numerous": I don't know exactly what the number would be, but "numerous online columnists" means, at least, more than one, and the sources only support there being one. If you put in a second one, then we can re-pluralize, though I think "numerous" is still somewhat POV, and might be better replaced with "several". Ideally, if you want to say that it's been criticized by numerous online columnists, you should find a source that says that it's been criticized by numerous online columnists, since that gets us out of OR territory. Steve Smith (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This webcomic has been commented on negatively by the guys at Penny Arcade, the guys at VGCats, and the guy at Zero Punctuation, and that's just off the top of my head. 2 of these are in the article, and the previously mentioned person who didn't act neutrally was the main driving force behind us not using the VGCats strip, which should be mentioned now. When a far more notable webcomic makes a strip detailing your webcomics failures, it would usually be classed as notable. --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I always assumed that the amount given with the references is sufficient. To critics of the edits, please read the links. --WRE451 (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

winter een mas

just a note. while winter een mas is mentioned would it be prudent to add some more detailed information. or at the very least the dates of said holiday? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.38.130 (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

sorry have just seen the link to the winter een mas page so unsure if this info would be needed , ( formatting ion wikipedia has been damaged by my webbroweser at moment, but it could be relavent```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.38.130 (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

-"Winter Een Mas" is nowhere near as huge as Buckley portrays it as being. It's just a part of the comic. A brief mention is all it needs. --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Article issues

I've got to admit that I can't see ANY of the issues formerly listed in the {{article issues}} (fansite, notability and references). If it's a fansite, then so is Xkcd, it has a number of third party references, and I'm pretty sure they establish notability. Therefore, I've removed the {{tl:prod}}, as I'm of the opinion that articles should not be deleted just because noone can agree on what they should say. Associated Content has another cad-comic review, it's currently blacklisted, but I've requested that the specific page be whitelisted. Rich^(Contribs)_{(Talk to me!)} 08:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Over half of this articles external references are primary sources, which are to be avoided. If you look at the Xkcd article, it has far more sources and looks more proffesionally done. Also, the Xkcd article has references that define its notablity outside of the internet. All of this articles problems are still with it, and have been with it since it was created. It's just not notable enough that we can find so many sources about it, apart from the seemingly widespread hatred of it. I'm not suggesting an AFD just yet, but perhaps sometime in the future if the articles problems persist. --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been mention of AfD multiple times over the years, with the users who suggested it ultimately deciding not to or else giving up after several back-and-forth posts with ridiculous arguments against such action. The issues on the top have been in standing for nearly a year now, and no one has cleaned them up. I don't see wasting the time on trying to make it presentable and accurate, because there are a select few editors who have seemingly made it their mission to keep this article as a fan-page. The last time I had checked this article was a couple years ago, and I'm not sure when the criticisms listed under reception were finally put in nor do I really care, but that was a major debacle back then; notably, thrindel as well as (it was assumed) Buckley himself continually removed anything shy of blatant promotion. Removing the deletion nom aside, which was done to put the article up before neutral editors, the other tags should not be removed as the issues, especially notability, still exist. I'll hold off on reinstating them if anyone cares to address them and actually change this article (and good luck with that). I'll check back in a few days, and if it hasn't improved, the tags and the AfD are both going back up.

Side-note: Rich, you can't exactly see non-notability in an article's content. Aside from the miscarriage story arc, for which the strip was parodied and/or slammed by a good majority of much larger web-comics (and several smaller comics as well), CAD only had one other noteworthy attribute: it was a less funny Penny Arcade rip-off with more Kentucky Fried Movie rip-offs/"references". In the first couple years, CAD didn't do terribly well on the various comic ranking/voting/whatever sites (perhaps the best sign of readership, and certainly popularity, which both correlate to notability). It was constantly topped by the likes of Bigger than Cheeses, Questionable Content, Overcompensating, and even A Modest Destiny. I believe this is why Tim removed CAD from their listings, having built an audience, though this is moot. Of those listed, only BTC no longer has a wiki page, and, at least in the brief history of web-comics, was far more popular. This is likely not the case anymore, unlike QC and OC, which are both fairly large. Though not quite up there with Penny Arcade, they have substantially larger audiences than CAD. The point is that CAD was a thing of fleeting interest, and the readership has dwindled in the year and a half since the miscarriage travesty. It is no longer relevant to a good majority of web-comic readers, except in use as a punchline of miserable disappointment made by a self-serving egomaniac who was at best usually only amusing, seldom funny, and perhaps twice hilarious. - Dudewhiterussian (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Feeling suitably educated, I'm going to undo my edit that removing the {{prod}}. It may say not to on the template, but I think this could be a valid exception under WP:IAR.

I am a fan - probably because I encountered it before penny arcade - and I maybe let that get in the way of true objectivity. Rich^(Contribs)_{(Talk to me!)} 07:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely neutral on deletion (though I endorse Chain of Flowers' general comments about the need for independent sources), but I'd like to note that the custom is for administrators to undelete articles deleted by PRODs on request (the thinking being that PRODs are supposed to be used only if no one objects, and a request for undeletion indicates that somebody objects to the deletion, even retroactively). If you want it to get deleted and stay deleted, AFD's the only route. Steve Smith (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to change my stance on the possible AFD action, as per Dudewhiterussians comments. AFD would give a brighter, wider, and more open place for the reasons behind the deletion in the first place. If we can reach an understanding then we can start AFD right away --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually meant to put this in afd, rather than the nom/proposal initially taken. For having edited on this site several years now, I've never nominated or put an article in afd. Clearly, this first attempt was not taken appropriately- I misunderstood what I read in the deletion guideline. So, A Chain of Flowers, I'm clearly for this, but to be fair, I'd like at least one more editor on board with this before taking afd action. This considering I've pontificated a great deal on it, and you've been on the discussion for a couple/few years, often critical of several aspects and other editors' conduct. It seems like with another party supporting this, we don't come off as trying to kill the page out of anti-CAD/Tim sentiment, or to spite an obvious fan-editor- though they seem not to have posted in a while.

I will say with honesty I don't like the comic anymore. I was a fan early on, ignoring the similarities to PA and other gaming comics. It started slowly, but it grew on me within a few months. While rarely laugh-funny, it did for me what Garfield or Family Circus does for print strip readers: it was amusing, a "laugh on the inside" kind of thing. However, the decline in quality around the time Tim went full-time threw me off and ultimately left me disappointed. After having not read it for nearly a year, I went back to it and found myself enjoying it once again. I continued reading until the miscarriage story. That destroyed the credibility for me, and I stopped reading regularly. Since then, checking on it every now and again, it hasn't really recovered, and the thing I notice in looking for some positive views on it is that there is very little discussion of the comic at all. It used to be polarizing, but at least somewhat respected. Now, it seems, the miscarriage ordeal turned off so many people that it's difficult to find anything on the comic that isn't disparaging and dated to that comic's release. It simply jumped the shark, to use popular parlance. I hope this fully explains my rationale in suggesting a deletion in the first place; it was never out of disdain. It's just that something that was once enjoyable and fairly popular has been reduced to a dated quasi-meme, and no longer stands on its own merit.

Dudewhiterussian (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Alright, since no one else has done this yet, I'm putting it up as an AfD. I'm not sure if this is the first time or not, so please correct that if it's wrong. Also, as stated before, this is my first time with AfD nomination; while I'm following the guideline, don't hesitate to alter/include anything I may miss. Dudewhiterussian (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for it, but I have no experience with AfD either. I'll make a comment when it's necessary --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Sadly, this horrible comic is notable. It should remain. --WRE451 (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why delete page

I have read all of the other post and it seems like the only reason they want to delete is because they do not like the strip. Wikipedia is for the preserving of all knowledge and the page does do the job of imparting basic information so that someone who wonders "What is that" can come here and look it up. Yes, the page does need worked on but that is not a reason for deletion. 01Mar2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilhelmi (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion with arguments for/against deletion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ctrl+Alt+Del. Rest assured that the discussion is far more in depth than a simple "I don't like it" point. --Taelus (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Article's Return

It would seem to me that there's not much new here that we haven't seen before. The references are still lousy with primary and fan-cruft sources, and this article doesn't tell me anything more than 'This Web-comic exists, here's who's in it'. The removal of a number of opposing viewpoints and critical discussion that existed in the last version is also troubling. Is this an honest attempt to bring back the article and make it NPOV? Rick Chesterfield (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you haven't actually read the article, because if you check the references, you'll see that the new references are either from video gaming websites that are on WP:VG/RS or are print sources from daily newspapers. And how is the article able to only communicate the fact that "this web comic exists, here's who's in it" in 1723 words, and with so many different sections? Either your comment is very deep, or very shallow; as in, perhaps you meant that ultimately, the only thing that every article really says is "this is what this is, and here's some stuff about it"? Deep stuff. Or, maybe you just didn't read the entire article? The primary references are only used for the "Main characters" section, which is acceptable in articles that have plots, etc. And finally, here is the version of the article before it was deleted. Absolutely NO information was removed, so I can't see why you would claim that opposing viewpoints were removed. Also, no matter HOW poorly the article is written, deletion discussions only focus on an article's notability; the point of bringing this article back was to show that it was indeed notable, with the help of several reliable sources. Please come to this discussion with more reasonable arguments next time, instead of simply trolling around here, thanks. Gary King (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So there's no incidents of negative criticism and only one accusation of plagiarism now? What about all the other examples from the deleted article? phfor (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see

I'm just writing this to say I'm so glad to see that searching for "Ctrl Alt Delete" doesn't redirect to a disambiguation page. Obviously CAD refers to the key combination in Windows, redirecting people to a page as if Buckley's comic was more important was just infuriating. I'd like to see a criticism section added but I won't complain now that my biggest gripe with the page has been dealt with. Keep up the good work. 121.45.167.129 (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Links

Most of the reference links, particularly the ones linking to the webcomic itself, aren't working. 71.97.59.52 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you be a teeny bit more specific? I thought you were referring to the comic links due to the formatting changes to the website, but those appear to be ok. Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)