See the history for more:
 Comics featuring real people
Hi Dgbrt. I saw that you deleted the Category: Comics featuring real people from 1536: The Martian. I may tend to agree with this decision. But the "real" people in that comic was the mentioning of Matt Damon, which was why I did not delete it myself. I just made a comment about this here on the Talk: Comics featuring real people page because I think people use this category in two ways. I'm not sure which way would be more correct. Shall the real-person be part of the comic or is it enough just for hem to be mentioned in the comic. In other featured people categories it is enough for them to be mentioned. See for instance Category:Comics featuring James. Maybe that category is also wrongly used/named though? It could have been called something other than featured. (Mentioning James). I'm open for both interpretations of these categories... --Kynde (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was just working on a proper layout. Pro-Tip: Use ctrl+f ;) . And all was beginning when you were destroying my layout at the transcript. I don't agree on that. --Dgbrt (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 Making discussion pages
I've recently restricted page creation for new users, which means that sometimes new users can't make a discussion page. Could you make the bot make empty talk pages for new comics as well? I'll push something to your git repo soon, right after I'm done with finals. Davidy²²[talk] 08:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi User:Davidy22, I'm sorry but mail notification didn't work. Please give me a reply here so I can see if the notification works. And tell me, if there is still a need to change the BOT. If so, it will be available by Friday. But before that I will create a comic named "dgbrtTEST" and ask you to delete it.--Dgbrt (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, will do. The changes are probably still preferred. Davidy²²[talk] 19:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, mail notification is working again. I will do the changes and let you when I've done the test.--Dgbrt (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- The update is done. I've done some local tests and I'm happy with this. At github you can see the current script with some more changes I've done in the past.--Dgbrt (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Should it already work on todays April Fools' Day comic? (I'm really looking forward to that). It will be great when it does, cool that you take the time to work on the update. I have spotted a couple of times recently where someone has either waited in anticipation for the discussion page to be created, have used the explanation to post what should have been a comment and even once had a user writing on my talk page to get me to create the page for them to use. --Kynde (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, will do. The changes are probably still preferred. Davidy²²[talk] 19:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
While I'm still waiting for the next update to give me a prove to my successful update on talk-pages, Randall gave us this April fool:
- The xkcd April 1st comic is currently experiencing technical difficulties.
- Status update: Please stand by.
- Status update: This is fine. Everything is fine.
- Status update: Everything is on fire.
- Status update: Searching for calendar systems in which Saturday is April 1st.
It seems Randall is on serious problems. But I'm happy about this honest message.--Dgbrt (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Only for my own documentation, the current schedule is this Sunday night. My BOT keeps an eye on this. Randall says:
- The Friday xkcd comic is currently experiencing technical difficulties [Editor's note: Everything is on fire] and has been delayed until Sunday night.
But since this will not be a standard comic I don't know what my BOT will do.--Dgbrt (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 Transcript and other features
Hi Dgbrt - hope this is not going to be TL;DR? :-)
I take further discussion on our part regarding transcript to your page, because I think we have written enough on my talk page on transcripts. If any one else will continue that discussion there that's fine, it would also be nice to have input from someone else than just us two and Zetfr.
I can see that you have been quite active this year, as compared to the last half year before (and also with a long break before that?) Will you have time to be more active from now in general? Welcome back anyway ;-) Just took a month and a half of complete break from Explain xkcd my self up until just after this New Year.
I believe we got of on a wrong foot, both long ago I think, and also just now when I was annoyed at you for writing on my page regarding transcripts (and the TL;DR comment). So I'm really happy how our transcript discussion went in the end, and thanks for the last comment from earlier today. And as I said there I did not read all you refereed to before answering the first couple of times, sorry again for that.
Nice to hear from Zetfr as one who really uses the transcripts. When I first found this page it took me some time to appreciate the importance of the transcript.
I know you have much more knowledge about what's possible with computers as your DgbrtBOT, which is great, shows me. (And thanks for adding creation of discussion pages to it). Also I like the way you made the Explain mentioned by Randall category. That is great. Cool that I made that happen by finding it for Payloads.
Maybe we should try to write a dedicated page on what the transcript on Explain xkcd is for; who may use it for reading comics; who for understanding other parts of the comics; and why they make sense regarding searching for specific things, not necessarily mentioned in text or our explanation. Something that could be referred to when people ask about transcripts, and also to explain why we should not just use a transcription of Randall's transcript for several reasons (naming of characters for instance) and because all text should be included for normal length comics, and at least all text in the extended transcript for huge comics (this was also what Zetfr suggested). Those type of full transcripts could also be mentioned there. As well as link to explanation of Randall's own transcripts.
I have recently added lots of info on xkcd's design on the xkcd page. But it became cluttered (TL'DR :-) so I have created two new pages from that info here: Design of xkcd.com and also the Transcript on xkcd I just mentioned above. The page for "our" transcripts could thus need one called Transcript on Explain xkcd like I also mentioned above.
I think keeping track of history and deviations on the main page etc. is important and fun for some people. But of course it should be hidden away for those that search for it, and not in "your" face, when all you wish to know is what chess win-los notation is.
- oohh, start reading... (check timestamp)--Dgbrt (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- ....ready. Answering all the questions will take a little bit longer. (check timestamp) --Dgbrt (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
For further discussions I will divide my answers to several headlines.
 dgbrt stopped posting here and only continued supporting dgbrtDOT for a proper page generation and all what belongs to this issue
I was often annoyed when I mentioned that texting should be short as possible. Huhh, I was censoring content... Everybody can say everything... So I felt like what Randall mentioned in many comics (youtube comments, you name it...). Even many explains are TL;DR and sometimes really OFF TOPIC. And most of that content belongs to only one user: Kynde. Sorry, but now I figured out your edits did not annoy only me. This just an honest answer from me. More technical discussions shouldn't run this way; I will open separate subsections for those. --Dgbrt (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Just like to add that I'm not the only one who writes more than other people think is needed... See the latest comic and it's discussion. I have only added the categories for that one... I was thinking the same as those two last comments, but after reading your answers here I did not wish to join in that conversation. :/ --Kynde (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
A transcript is perfect when someone who doesn't know the image is reading this feels the same as someone who simply looks at that picture. Is that possible? NO! Look at a picture showing some clouds... What do you see? The same as me? NO! Can you describe all the differences we both see? NO! So, not the cloud shape is important, it's just a cloud. If there is some importance on the shape it goes into the explain section. (I have no specific comic in mind on this). --Dgbrt (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I mentioned this to Davidy22. You should talk to others here before editing those essential pages! If I've seen this by the time you edited this a simple UNDO would have been my reaction. --Dgbrt (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 Keep it compact
Did I miss some essentials?--Dgbrt (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Dgbrt. I have read your comments. Thanks for the input. I do not have anything specific to say at the time. Sorry you feel like this though.
- I have one question not related to the above. What happened to your new category? I can see Davidy deleted it. Sorry about that. I liked the idea. I did not have time to look at your other finds. If it is not a big trouble for you I would appreciate if you wrote the numbers on the comic here (no links needed). --Kynde (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Kynde, the reason given by Davidy22 was: "Mangled category name, and we don't make categories based on things that aren't in the comics." I wonder why the second criteria doesn't fit to the three LiveJournal categories. And I'm sure there are more "categories based on things that aren't in the comics". Nevertheless the comics are:
- --Dgbrt (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Dgbrt. I think his first point is valid, but that would have been easy to fix. Maybe he just did not care to do so? I really think it is relevant, and considers posting these in the trivia of the first and linking from the others to that trivia. And on Randall's page we could make a note saying that although he has nothing personal to do with this site, he has acknowledged its existence at least seven times. Although it has not been out in the open but only behind the scenes for those who really study the comic. --Kynde (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)