Jump to content

Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 3, 2010Articles for deletionRedirected
February 25, 2011Articles for deletionKept

Attempt to imply criticism beyond what's in the sources

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

winter een mas

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

-"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)[reply]

Article issues

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

AFD

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Why delete page

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


The Article's Return

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Glad to see

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Norwegian university thesis source

[edit]

While searching for scholarly sources for Netboy and Stafford Huyler I came across this possibly useful paper on webcomics from the University of Tromsø that includes Ctrl-Alt-Del in a survey of webcomic popularity:

Briefly, 293 people were asked which webcomics they read: Pondus was most popular with 147 readers, xkcd 5th popular with 52 readers, through Ctrl+Alt+Del with 20 readers, ending with User Friendly with 14; of the 230 men Pondus was still ranked top, xkcd ranked 3rd and Ctrl+Alt+Del ranked 13th with 18 readers; among the 62 women again Pondus ranked top, but xkcd fell to 7th with only 7 readers and Ctrl+Alt+Del did not appear in the women's list. The author classifies Ctrl+Alt+Del together with xkcd and Penny Arcade as "nerdcore" and notes the significant gender difference in popularity of that group of comics. The paper explains some of the problems with the survey (some had to be discarded, an example weblink became stale, and one failed to give a gender). -84user (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author appears to be "Olaf Moriarty Solstrand", this guy, who has a Norwegian wiki page here.
I'm not certain that the paper would be useful for inclusion, as it appears to be just another graduate studies paper (not something I *generally* see used, but not unrealistic), and I'm not sure if he's up to snuff for the rather stringent standards people put on sources in webcomic-related pages. Also, and really my main comment, would be "so what?" Without going through the whole paper (and I'm not going to) it's a brief mention that includes 7% of the people questioned and doesn't really give anything notworthy for here (and you mention that the survey had problems to boot).
It's interesting, but not noteworthy imho. Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article back?

[edit]

After the previous discussions on the subject, a general lack of sources/interest, and pretty much a unanimous decision on deletion, why is this article back? All that has changed is that a larger criticism section has been added, along with a few very small sources. It is STILL not notable --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking perfectly frankly, do you really think this article will die? For the longest time anything other than praise was edited right out, with a million layers of red tape pulled out of the human anus to keep it from being re-added. The fact of the matter is that at least it's moving in the right direction, slowly, and I also have to say that the eventual "right direction" for this article is deletion. Less and less material that isn't trivia or sourced from the comic's own pages/blog. The only thing that makes me smirk about that is the irony that, as of the moment, the most reputable sources are the ones saying that the comic and it's creator are shit. Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point well made. At least the comics reputation is now reflected in its article, somewhat. Eventual deletion, here we come --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I last followed this page a year and a half ago. The Reception section is now a third the size of the article. Surely this amount of info is not necessary? Nilzy (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article as a whole is of dubious value and referencing. The "reception" to the comic/artist/etc is pretty much the only reason this comic is noteworthy nowadays, so I'd really have to disagree with you there. As that section stands, it covers pertinent bits in about as unbiased manner as it can (especially considering the "choice phrasing" used by some of the peers/critics), is well sourced, and I would highly disagree with deletions to that section. Human.v2.0 (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The "reception" to the comic/artist/etc is pretty much the only reason this comic is noteworthy nowadays" - That's the only reason any artwork is noteworthy. But it shouldn't be the focus of the wiki article - this isn't metacritic, after all. Iiago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.171.34 (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just reading some of the comments here seems like a lot of you are against this comic based on reputation and not notability.--72.19.94.123 (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From my own perspective, completely incorrect. The notability is, well, nill. The reputation of the article is to shoehorn in questionable references that promote a positive image in the article and at the same time "ban" references of a stronger nature that preset a more balanced (or, as others would call, "negative") image of the article's topic. It's a method usually categorized as "fan page" wikis or at the least edits of a heavily biased nature. I don't really feel the need to elaborate too much, you can look at the archives for that. In particular, you should note some sources that were originally banned from the criticism section then being used for non-critical comments. I read the comic; I read many webcomics; and in this year alone several wiki entries have been deleted against my desires. This is the only one that I feel merits deletion or heavy pruning but has been brought back again and again by (frankly) the biased opinion of "hardcore fans". Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the notability requirements for webcomics should be more specific. According to Alexa, Ctrl+Alt+Del ranks #3,075 in the United States - not on top, of course, but higher than many other webcomics which have articles on Wikipedia, and indeed some other websites that have articles on Wikipedia. Additionally, Ctrl+Alt+Del has been nominated for awards. I'm sure people will jump up and down about this comment and call me a fanboy, but the truth is what compelled my to comment is that the idea that "From my own perspective, completely incorrect. The notability is, well, nill," is an unbiased statement is ludicrous. This article is unquestionably notable because the subject is clearly popular.--76.179.145.245 (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article should not be deleted. I have read through the past discussion on nominating this article for deletion, and while other reasons for deletion are given, nearly all of them have a distinct flavour of "and it's a bad webcomic". While I haven't done the full research for third party sources, I do know that this comic has been on sale in my local comic store in Australia. Normally, I would consider any book that's sold internationally to be "noteable". 202.59.243.30 (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)iiago[reply]

Ubisoft & Winter-een-mas

[edit]

I wanted to point everyone's attention to the fact that Ubisoft, a worldwide video game publisher, has prominently displayed support for and a sale related to Winter-een-mas on their website. I'm not sure how or if it can be sourced, but it certainly lends another argument for the notability, and even prominence, of the webcomic (particularly if we accept a chain of flowers's argument that winter-een-mas is "a part of the comic"). The Ubisfot page can be seen here: Ubisoft Winter-een-mas Sale--Vercingetorix08 (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manila Times reference removed

[edit]

Some sourced text was removed here with comment "dead reference link". The reference was a now-expired google cache of a Manila Times newspaper article published in 2009 November 30. Internet archive does not have a copy of the article, neither does it have copies of the Manila Times archive for November. The newspaper current archives only go back three months, while their "other" archives do not include November. However there is a copy saved by Highbeam, credit card details needed for registration. Author: Angelo Cantera; title: SHORT AND NOT-SO-SWEET HUMOR:www.smbc-comics.com; link: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1914011051.html . -84user (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have now reverted the removal and re-added the original Manila Times archive link (now dead) and added the highbeam link as the only extant archive I can find. I do not think it is good practice to remove sourced text when the access to the source changes or becomes more difficult. I have no reason to believe that the editors that placed and sourced this text, and those that presumably checked it, were wrong. -84user (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of "Loss"

[edit]

I've seen CAD referenced many times on the Internet, and in almost every case it was criticism of "Loss". Every other case was criticism of the forced drama in general, or the artwork. It seems like the criticism of this comic (seen only in the Reception section) is grossly understated here, and limited to quotes from specific critics. Perhaps if the Reception section were titled Criticism and reorganized into categories (copypasta art style, melodrama storyline, specific "Loss" comic, lack of humor, dialogue density)? As it is, the article seems to glow about a webcomic that is notable primarily for its age and the memes making fun of it (none which are mentioned here).

Then again, I could be totally off the mark. Maybe this is a wildly popular gamer webcomic like Penny Arcade or PvP or even VG Cats and I've just never seen or heard people talking about how they enjoy reading it. I haven't read it, so I have no opinion one way or the other. If the artist actually makes a living doing this, there must be a fan base somewhere (though I think the "small group of comics that receive full-time devotion from their artist" is a bit silly...I can easily think of a couple dozen off the top of my head). TricksterWolf (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm far from being a fan of Mr Tickley, any such comments would have to come from reliable sources. If you're not sure whether a given site counts as a "reliable source", you can post on the noticeboard. Finding acceptable sources on such a topic is often harder on the researcher than on the reader, and you'll likely have to move past it and heal. DS (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to come across a very interesting article dedicated to the strip in question: Feldman, Brian (2015-11-06). "Talking to the Man Behind 'Loss,' the Internet's Longest-Running Miscarriage 'Joke'". New York Magazine. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) ~Mable (chat) 20:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) → ‪Ctrl+Alt+Del‬ –

This is the only thing on the Wiki that has the exact name "Ctrl+Alt+Del". If someone is looking for the key combination, they can be hatnoted to "Control-Alt-Delete". A search through Google shows that nearly every instance of "Ctrl+Alt+Del" (with plus signs) is in reference to the webcomic, so I think nearly anyone who searches for it with no spaces and the plus signs between the words is looking for the comic. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

manilatimes.net

[edit]

I've been meaning to ask this for some time, but seeing as the comic has more or less finished off it seems like a good time to address a confusing fact:

Why the fark are the sources used for non-existant articles from Manila Times? How on earth is that a relevant source (if the articles were even available anymore), and more to the point doesn't that seem to be a rather unusual "periodical" to be pretty much the only third-party references?

If that was being used as a source (and the ONLY source) for information in any other article, it wouldn't stand up to a stiff breeze through a silly straw. Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Manila Times is a legitimate newspaper and a valid source to demonstrate notability. Someone B^Ungled the link to the paper's online edition; even if it's now only accessible by checking the print archives or going through a paywall, that's still valid. DS (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Longest running webcomic?

[edit]

It says near the top that "Ctrl+Alt+Del has formed a reputation for being one of the longest running webcomics." but Penny Arcade which is mentioned only a few words earlier than the quote, was launched in 1998 as opposed to when Ctrl+Alt+Del was launched, which was in 2002.

So, I think that statement may need to be changed to "Ctrl+Alt+Del has formed a reputation for being a long running webcomic." To claify the meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.131.48 (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a 2nd look at that there, and will remove it unless there's some source specifically mentioning. It hasn't been around nearly long enough to have that comment arbitrarily, but I might have missed it before.Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. It was a reference from the Manila Times, which considering it is basically the only newspaper in the entire world that "just happens" to have a few deleted and paywall CAD articles... well, I don't really consider it to be an authority on the matter. There are already too many questionable sources being used here from that place. Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Racist

[edit]

I removed the following paragraph from the article, it was then reinstated.

The Ctrl+Alt+Del comic published on April 15, 2011, titled "Dress For Success," originally contained a punchline considered racist by many readers.[42] Within an hour of publishing the original comic, Buckley replaced it with a slightly modified version that retained the reference to African Americans, but downplayed racial stereotyping. The original is still available along with the new version.

I have removed the paragraph again as apart from being a violation of WP:BLP it is unverified information based on inappropriate sources. I consider the paragraph to be a violation of WP:BLP as it effectively claims someone created a racist work without providing suitable sources. Even if it does not deal explicitly with biographical information an artist and their works are inextricably linked. Even without the WP:BLP violation the paragraph is still not appropriate. The only sources given are the comics themselves and a forum discussion. All the forum source indicates is that some - anonymous - people on an internet forum claimed that they consider the comic to be racist not that it "originally contained a punchline considered racist by many readers.". The remainder of the paragraph is unsourced and appears to be synthesis ("...retained the reference to African Americans, but downplayed racial stereotyping"). Guest9999 (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact it is only sourced to the comic and SA forums is reason enough to remove it, good call. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't think that it really toes into WP:BLP lines (specifically, I think you're treading into sketchy grounds by associating "anything that a living person is directly responsible for" with more-stringent-than-standard BLP requirements), and arguing that the comics themselves are certainly citeable, it is hard to think of a way to rework it without synthesis without making it entirely pointless to include. Maybe I'll poke around and see if there are any other sources that covered it, but in lieu of that outside chance I'd say the reasoning and implied consensus is sound. Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Loss" change

[edit]

First, checking sources, there probably should be a section on "Loss" by itself, we have a good RS article on the details of its "meme" history. [1].

But to add, CAD's pages for Loss seem to have been removed but replaced with "Found" which seemed to be a nod to the meme history, but we don't know why yet (it's rather eerie, may be a result of a hack) [2] I would hold off on this until we know more about why it got changed or if was just pranksters. --Masem (t) 19:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ctrl%2BAlt%2BDel_(webcomic)&oldid=1199338170"