explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3096: Check Engine

2025-06-02T11:12:09Z

172.70.91.245: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3096
| date = May 30, 2025
| title = Check Engine
| image = check_engine_2x.png
| imagesize = 331x383px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = They say it's probably safe to keep orbiting for a while, but if it stays on or starts flashing we might have to call someone.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by THE SOLAR PIT CREW. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
{{w|Sunspot|Sunspots}} are temporary, relatively small, darker (because cooler) regions on the surface of Earth's Sun. The number of sunspots that can be observed varies over an approximately 11-year cycle. The current cycle is {{w|Solar_cycle_25|the 25th since reckoning began in 1755}}. Solar Cycle 25, which began in December 2019 and is expected to peak around mid-2025, has been more active than anticipated, raising some concerns about the impacts of recent solar flares and associated space weather events.

The joke in this comic is that the sunspot array shown has taken the form of a "{{w|Check engine light}}", found on the instrument panel of most automobiles. The illumination of this light means that the automobile's onboard computer has detected an engine malfunction, which should be checked out by an experienced mechanic. For such a signal to appear among the nuclear fires and plasma of the sun would most certainly be of concern to astronomers.

Many drivers will barely notice a Check Engine light, and may hope that they ''never'' have cause to see it appear except maybe briefly during the turning of the ignition key as one of the bulb-checks. If it lights persistently before or during driving, it could mean a costly problem, or at least the inconvenience of paying someone to investigate the problem. Frequently, such investigations reveal no identifiable issue with the engine itself, resulting rather from some kind of sensor fault. In this case, the advice may be that it's probably OK to keep changing unless the behaviour of the light changes, and fixing the sensor issue may cause more expense than the small risk of a genuine engine issue arising would warrant.

As we don't appear to be cycling the Sun's ignition process (i.e., it hasn't recently stalled, which would be a worry in itself) the showing of the light/dark-patch would probably be very concerning, and hopefully someone at least has the owner's manual in order to run through any initial troubleshooting, before perhaps a more extensive check is made at the local solar-repair shop to clear the error. Given the rotating nature of the star and Earth's orbit, one might also wonder how long this, or any other warnings, might be shown before becoming visible to {{w|Solar viewer|suitably equipped}} viewers of the Sun.

The title text says that "they" (presumably the astronomers) advise that it's probably safe for Earth to continue to orbit the Sun unless and until there is a change in the nature of the "check engine light" sunspot array. Such a change, on an instrument panel, signals that the matter needs immediate attention, lest something dramatic and expensive occur, such as an [https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/l8j0ip/eli5_what_is_a_seized_engine/ engine seizure], which can be spectacular and is irreparable. The solar equivalent of an engine seizure would be a {{w|Nova|nova}}, which would definitely be of concern to astronomers (and [[1895 | everyone else]]), and for which the prospect of "calling [[673: The Sun | someone]]" that can do anything useful (a cosmic tow truck to pull Earth to a safe distance?) seems remote.

==Transcript==
:[In a black panel a large orange sun i shown. Depicted as it might look when viewed through solar eclipse glasses. A pattern in the form of a "check engine" light (as displayed on a car's instrument panel) is shown on the surface of the Sun, in the bottom right quarter. The pattern has a pictogram of a motor on the top with text below it, both in orange inside a black square, matching the orange color of the Sun.]
:Check Engine

:[Caption below the panel:]
:This new sunspot cluster has raised concern among astronomers

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]

3089: Modern

2025-05-15T13:01:49Z

172.70.91.245: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3089
| date = May 14, 2025
| title = Modern
| image = modern_2x.png
| imagesize = 547x209px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Scholars are still debating whether the current period is post-postmodern or neo-contemporary.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created in the pre-post-postmodern section of the post-postmodern era. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

This strip references a perennial naming problem where academic {{w|jargon}} and everyday language meet. Shortly after the industrial revolution (or perhaps the Renaissance) contemporaneous things were significantly different and labeled "modern" (whether it's labor relations, art, economic organization, literature, architecture, etc) by historians. The "modern" political movements emphasize optimizing society in different ways and evolved into Communism, and its counter Fascism. The further development of culture to reject the idea you can optimize societity, or that trying to do so is a bad idea, became known as post-modernism.

However, in standard English, modern retains its meaning of "contemporaneous" or "current era," so one can end up discussing a 'modern' era of stuff that comes after the rise of a Post-Modern (from an academic context) era of stuff, which doesn't really sound sensical.

The problem has arisen because once an era is named it is difficult or impractical to rename it later. The term "Modern" first began being used to describe an era in the early 20th century, especially to refer to art, and then in relation to that "Early Modern" was retrospectively applied to the period before it that were related to it. Once things had moved beyond that then "post-modernity" was a natural way of modifying the name. "Mid-century Modern", was again, a retrospective modification not used at the time. However, things have now moved so far beyond even post modernity, that further words are needed. This is itself a relatively 'modern' problem that possibly arose from the Victorian scholarly desire to allocate names to periods (Classical, Romantic, Renaissance etc.) based upon the perceived societal trends of the individuals, and often across greater periods of time, rather than any single monarch or period of succession. Prior to that historians would have discussed a time period based on the ruler at the time, and for a given region of influence, as those in charge were believed to be the most important factor, not the masses. Hence 'Ming dynasty' (China, 1368-1644), 'Tudor period' (England and Wales, 1485 and 1603), 'The Commonwealth' (Republican British Isles, 1649-1660), 'Napoleonic' (France and beyond, ~1804-1815), 'Victorian' (British Empire and related lands, 1837-1901) and 'Soviet Era' (USSR, 1922-1991). Though, depending upon the context/comparison being made, all these potentially overlapping terms and more ('19th Century', 'The Interbellum', 'The Depression', 'The Swinging Sixties') may still be considered apt.

==Transcript==

:[A timeline is shown with ticks every five years between 1850 and 2020]
:[Before 1850 until 1880]
:Early Modern
:[1880 until 1945]
:Modernist
:[1945 until 1965]
:Mid-century modern
:[1965 until 2000]
:Postmodern
:[2000 until past 2020]
:Modern

:[Caption below the panel]
:The use of the word "modern" to refer to a bunch of specific historical periods is a fun prank by historians.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

Talk:3082: Chess Position

2025-05-04T20:27:41Z

172.70.91.245:

This is very nearly the core plot conceit of the movie ''Π'' (1998). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.190|172.70.130.190]] 22:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:I believe you want lower-case Pi: π not Π. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_(film) --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 22:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::Unless they're talking about an obscure spinoff where the protagonist becomes weirdly obsessed with the products of sequences of numbers. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.180|172.69.195.180]] 14:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Which, for xkcd, is ... indeed plausible. {{unsigned|JimJJewett|15:33, 4 May 2025}}

Does anybody know whether Randall has taken up chess as a hobby? 5 of the 82 comics in the 3000s have been related to chess and only 2 in the 2000s were. If so, this should be included in the explanation. [[User:BobcatInABox|BobcatInABox]] ([[User talk:BobcatInABox|talk]]) 23:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:3000s? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.190.236|172.71.190.236]] 23:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:Oh right comic number not decade/millennium. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.43.157|172.70.43.157]] 23:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:Wouldn't surprise me, there's a three year gap in between chess comics 2465 (May 2021) and 2936 (May 2024), then the aforementioned 5 in 5 months. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.251|172.70.114.251]] 00:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I really suspect that the full explanation has something to do with this: https://www.kasparov.com/the-implacable-logic-of-the-vortex-of-history/ [[Special:Contributions/172.68.7.206|172.68.7.206]] 23:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC) Dan
: Doubtful, that article was written in 2013, and it is unlikely that Randall came upon it just now to make this comic. Vortex is a general term for something that sucks you in. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.66|172.70.214.66]] 00:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
: Quite possible, since simple web search on Garry Kasparov reveals the aforementioned article about Kasparov's theories of the "vortex of history'. And there is a PlayStation game called "Virtual Kasparov" which is reviewed on the PlayStation review site [https://www.gamevortex.com/psillustrated/soft_rev.php/748 Virtual Kasparov on GameVortex.com]. So, there are at least two places where Kasparov and the word vortex are connected. The term "vortex" would be very tempting for Randall to exploit for comic effect. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 16:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I sure hope that it stays as not a real thing [[User:Commercialegg|Commercialegg]] ([[User talk:Commercialegg|talk]]) 01:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
: It might not be, but it's easy enough to make: Train an adversarial network on human chess games. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.41|172.68.22.41]] 04:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The part about losing the ability to play chess even after building a resistance feels familiar. Isn't that how the Elder Scrolls worked in Skyrim, at least. Even highly trained sages would lose the ability to see for a time after reading an Elder Scroll. And the Oblivion remaster just released the other day... --[[User:Ragashingo|Ragashingo]] ([[User talk:Ragashingo|talk]]) 01:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

This comic has serious classic SCP energy. I feel like I'd read about this in an old Series I - II article, back when it was still good. [[User:Pie Guy|Pie Guy]] ([[User talk:Pie Guy|talk]]) 18:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

----
Cf Von Goom's Gambit by [Victor Contoski](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Contoski) published in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, December 1966:

And what of Von Goom's Gambit? Chess is a game of logic. Thirty-two pieces move on a board of sixty-four squares, colored alternately dark and light. As they move they form patterns. Some of these patterns are pleasing to the logical mind of man, and some are not. They show what man is capable of and what is beyond his Take any position of the pieces on the chessboard. Usually it tells of the logical or semi-logical plans of the players, their strategy in playing for a win or a draw, and their personalities. If you see a pattern from the King s Gambit Accepted, you know that both players are tacticians, that the fight will be brief but fierce...
Now suppose someone discovers by accident or design a pattern on the chessboard that is more than displeasing, an alien pattern that tells unspeakable things about the mind of the player, man in general and the order of the universe. Suppose no normal man can look at such a pattern and remain normal. Surely such a pattern must have been formed by Von Goom’s Gambit.

I wish the story could end here, but I fear it will not end for a long time. History has shown that discoveries cannot be unmade. Two months ago in Camden, New Jersey, a forty-tliree year old man was found turned to stone staring at a position on a chessboard... {{unsigned ip|162.158.217.38|05:22, 29 April 2025}}

: ''"Cf Von Goom's Gambit"'' https://archive.org/details/Fantasy_Science_Fiction_v031n06_1966-12_PDF/page/n63/mode/2up?view=theater --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 17:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
----

<q>When you stare into the vortex, the vortex also stares into you</q>, a famous quote from Kasparov. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 17:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

If I may, can we find a position that would match Cueball's description? Where he states "every move attacked every piece, yet every piece was also protected,"? That would be cool. {{unsigned ip|172.69.33.220|20:26, 29 April 2025}}

Why is karpov mentioned in the explanation? I assume more chess comics as chess has grown in popularity to answer the above question. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.160|172.70.91.160]] 22:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:I think the Karpov part was copied and pasted from the explanation for xkcd:2936. I will delete it unless someone objects [[Special:Contributions/172.69.23.211|172.69.23.211]] 00:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I somehow expected this to be a political comic[[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.252|162.158.166.252]] 03:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't play video games, but I'm pretty sure that this refers to the weird glitches in video games you can get into by choosing wrong moves at just the right point in the game. Players sometimes actively seek out, even if you can't play the game properly from inside the glitch. Of course the idea of entering a glitch while playing a real-life chess game is absurd, but in video games these errors are hard to prevent because it's so easy to overlook some rare but possible situations players could get into. See also [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodBadBugs] [[User:Franziska|Franziska]] ([[User talk:Franziska|talk]]) 10:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

This feels like it would open into the House of Leaves. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.177|172.70.130.177]]

Might've been romanticizing disregard for the meta. ''"It's funner to not keep score"'' thinking. Heavy ''"I don't want to play chess anymore"'' it's-better-than-chess romanticizing. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.116|172.68.35.116]] 14:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

"The fact that an apparent distortion in the fabric of space can be countered with a single pawn just adds to the absurdity of the situation." - I'm fairly certain the idea is not that this chess position alters reality somehow, but that it is cognitohazardous - i.e. perceiving this particular board configuration interacts with the brain's learned pattern recognition for chess in a deleterious way. An 'adversarial example' for a human brain instead of a neural network. [[User:Somdudewillson|Somdudewillson]] ([[User talk:Somdudewillson|talk]]) 19:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

This reminds me of a story I heard about Kasparov, please feel free to fact check.
Kasparov was playing Deep Blue, the top chess playing computer at the time. Apparently, Deep Blue had a glitch, and made a legal but unreasonable move. Kasparov did not know it was a computer mistake, and looked for meaning in the move. Unable to find a reason behind the move, Kasparov was "thrown off his game" suspecting that the computer was trying something he could not figure out. This lead to a stalemate in that game, and ended up being the turning point between the matches between Kasparov and Deep Blue. {{unsigned ip|104.23.190.20|18:43, 1 May 2025}}

explain xkcd:Community portal/Proposals

2025-05-04T20:25:46Z

172.70.91.245: /* Proposal for template page */

<noinclude>{{Community links}}

{|-
|valign="top" width="100%"|[[File:Crystal Clear app ktip.png|left|120px]] <big><big>Proposals</big></big>

Place for ideas and suggestions to improve the wiki's design and organization on general issues can be incubated for later submission for consensus discussion. Be sure to check whether your proposal has already been submitted. {{AddNewSection|Page=Explain XKCD:Community portal/Proposals|Text=(+post)}}
|}</noinclude>

==ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS==
<div class="plainlinks" style="background:#edf6ff; border:1px solid #a7d7f9; margin:1em auto 1em auto; width:100%; font-size: 120%; padding: 0.5ex; text-align: center;">Most of the discussions on this page have been archived. The archive is available at '''[[explain xkcd talk:Community portal/Proposals]]'''.</div>

== Re-proposing merging Cueball and Rob ==

Okay, so this was previously [[http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Merge_Cueball_.26_Rob discussed] but I felt that it was worth bringing up again. Really, at this point, there's no logical reason why the two should not be merged, or Megan and Cutie should be un-merged. Rob and Cueball clearly seem to be the same person, at least when cueball appears as a specific character. In the instances where there are multiple Cueballs, we should just refer to them as Man 1, Man 2, and so on. Can we get a vote or something this time? Yes, I understand that Cueball isn't always the same character. But neither is [[Megan]], and yet we always refer to the short black haired girl (formerly [[Cutie]]) as Megan. If that logic applies to her, it applies to Rob. It's pretty clear that Randall intended to name the character Rob, as most named Cueballs are named Rob and not Fred or something.

In short: Please don't bring nostalgia into this, it's really not relevant. Changing Cueball to Rob or Megan back to Cutie (or Cuegirl?) would have symmetry and make sense. {{unsigned ip|Sensorfire}}
:I'm ok with dumping a marginal character page that only served to add confusion to character identification in new comics, but this was a subject of contention before so we probably need to see more of people's thoughts first. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 01:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

:I agree: let's list the arguments for both sides, ensure that everyone agrees with the objectiveness of that listing, and then vote. If there's support for this plan, and nobody does it first, I'll take a stab at producing a first draft of the summary. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 23:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

:Randall is currently on a booktour. So, how about, instead of us (without the ability to read minds) arguing about his intention or who is/isn't the same character, someone go see him and ask? Then we'll know with absolute 100% certainty. [[User:WaltG123|WaltG123]] ([[User talk:WaltG123|talk]]) 04:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
::Randall never called either character Cueball and Cutie so of course this is not his names. Asking him would make no meaning at all. For any user of xkcd it will create lots of confusion to change the names of Megan and Cueball now. Regarding Rob he is already listed as Cueball in his category. And Cueballs have been called other names several times. Rob is just the only one that has been used a few times. I agree that it may have been wrong to call her Megan, (the name has been used like three times?) Similar it is just as wrong to call Black Hat's girlfriend [[Danish]], a nick name used once. But it is actually very nice to have a real name or at least useful name when speaking of characters. And it has also been mentioned that Cutie could be perused as a sexist name, so we should not move back to that. Well recently even [[Hairbun]] has her name changed from Hairbun girl since a user thought that was a problem given it most often was a grown woman. So I think we should stick to the solution of the previous debate and leave Cueball, Rob and Megan alone as they are! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

== Adjective phrases ==

Overwhelmed with the need to be picayune, I am compelled to point out that on the homepage there is the sentence that begins "There are a lot of comics that don't have set in stone explanations..." This sentence contains a adjective phrase which should be hyphenated thus: "set-in-stone"

Please pretend that I have said something witty here, as I am too tired to think of anything funny. {{unsigned|Gamewriter}}
:Is it actually grammatically wrong in it's current state? Huh. I guess I'll change it. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 20:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

::This is long after the fact, but I'll throw my two cents in on Davidy22's question. Yes, it is wrong. If the 'set in stone' phrase were after the word explanations ("explanations set in stone") it would not require hyphens, but used as an adjective before the noun ("set-in-stone explanations") it requires them. D Miller [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.41|108.162.221.41]] 18:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

== Update MediaWiki ==

You are currently using MediaWiki 1.19.17. It's ''really'' outdated. Maybe update to 1.26.2, the current recommended stable version? There is an [[mw:Manual:Upgrading|official guide]] for that. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.77|141.101.80.77]] 12:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC) (PS my IP address is wrong it's not what you think it is)

== Rename Hair Bun Girl ==

The character [[Hair Bun Girl]] was named in April 2015. There wasn't any discussion of the name at the time, so I'd like to open that discussion now please.

At present we have several other characters named after distinctive visual features: [[Ponytail]], [[Black Hat]], [[White Hat]], [[Beret Guy]], and arguably [[Hairy]] and [[Cueball]]. In all but one of those cases, the name matches the distinctive feature itself, without the addition of "guy", "girl", etc. Given the number of comics that Beret Guy is in it's probably too late to modify his name, but it's not too late for Hair Bun Girl.

Besides the consistency issue, there's also the inaccuracy of referring to a grown woman with the term "girl", particularly when the character has been presented as older than [[Megan]]. I'd really like to fix this while her number of appearances is still manageable.

The name "Hairbun" has been proposed and I think that matches really nicely with Ponytail in particular.

[[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 04:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:As the "guy" who created the Hair Bun Girl characther, I have no objection to changing the name. I did not think about the issue with girl/woman, probably because I'm not native English speaker. (And with the Beret Guy as an example). Jkshapiro was so kind as to [[User_talk:Kynde#Hair_Bun_.22Girl.22|ask my opinion]] before starting this discussion. At first I thought that ''Hairbun'' was a little weird, but then again so is Ponytail in this context. So I '''support''' the change to '''Hairbun'''! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote '''change''' Hair Bun to Hairbun and '''keep''' girl. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 21:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm going ahead. [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 02:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
:Well as I said I would not mind, but you cannot say you got any other to agree with you on this though. Mimek wished to keep girl... It will be a huge job to get all the instances correct, also be careful no to change those places where the talk is of a girl who has a hair bun. You cannot just change all placed with hair bun girl to Hairbun, in case is actually says the hair bun girl about a small girl who has a hair bun! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
::Seems no one cares, so I will remove the notes now. Great job Jkshapiro with changing the names. I like the new name now :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

== Mobile friendly website ==

Can we get a mobile friendly version of the wiki? If we already have one, what about forwarding the main site to it when viewed on a phone? [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 20:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. And/or an app. I would like to be able to keep track of which comics/explanations I have read. [[User:Calion|Calion]] ([[User talk:Calion|talk]]) 13:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Install [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:MobileFrontend the MobileFrontend-extension] on the wiki. Or is it more complicated than that? [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/User:Dgbrt Dgbrt] mentions "working on a real mobile version" below, under [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Tables_vs_bold_text Tables vs bold text] [[User:Coverbe|Coverbe]] ([[User talk:Coverbe|talk]]) 15:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

== New categories ==

I think there may be a need to propose a standard way to decide on categories: what new ones are needed, what are the prerequisites for creating a new category, how to maintain new categories and make sure they are actually used when they apply etc. For now I have gathered all previous discussions about new categories under this section. -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 13:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:I think that whenever there are more than 4-5 comics that you wish to refer to in a given explanation because they are of the same topic as the current comic, then having a category is much to prefer rather than listing 5, 6 or 7 comics. I have made several categories for these instances, for instance for sport including the most used sports. At the time being I keep them up to date. One of the things this site does so well is giving you an easy way to find a specific comic even though you cannot remember the title of any precise quotes etc. If you just have an idea of what the topic was you might find it based on the categories. In this way I do not think we can have too many categories. As long as they describe a recurring subject. Only fault is that there seems to be no way to search for a comic based on more than one category? That would be great. In some cases even only 3 comics in a category can make sense. For instance I would be sorry to see this one go [[:Category:Puts on sunglasses]] (and I did not make it!) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::For instance I have long wished for categories that covered all the space probe related comics, particularly all those referencing the Mars rovers. So today I made them with 16 and 9 comics in them already. [[:Category:Space probes]] [[:Category:Mars rovers]]. I hope people will generally think this was a great idea! :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:::And [[:Category:The Lion King]]... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

There are a lot of category creation proposals scattered everywhere. This concentrated proposal list is really hard to find. [[User:ClassicalGames|ClassicalGames]] ([[User talk:ClassicalGames|talk]]) 08:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

=== Category: Protip ===

Anyone for adding ''Protip'' as a [[:Category:Comic series|Comic series]]. I have found five so far: [[653]], [[711]], [[1022]], [[1047]] and [[1156]]. (There are also a few comics with a protip title text.) -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 10:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:I think that qualifies as a recurring topic (thus worthy of a category), but not as a series, where you can see a clear sequence. In fact, [[:Category:My Hobby|My Hobby]] has the same limitation, for what I suggest it to be removed from [[:Category:Comic series]]. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 11:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

::Seconded. Looks general and common enough to be a category. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:::Okay, great! Do you think that the ones with a "protip:" title text should be included? Besides, I think I might be the one responsiple for moving My Hobby from [[:Category:Comics by topic|Comics by topic]] to Comic series. I felt that all the My Hobby comics were about different topics, but maybe i've got to narrow an interpretation of the word "topic". -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 15:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:::: Can you link to the protip-in-title-text comics?
:::: As for My Hobby, note that categories aren't mutually exclusive. They can be in the "my hobby" topic, and each of them further categorized as appropriate: music, math, etc. Makes sense? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 03:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
:::: I just searched for protip in the xkcd search bar. Here: [[1084]], [[427]]. And yes, makes sense. I've moved My Hobby back to "by topic". -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 12:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

=== Category: Sports ===

How about creating a new "Sports" category? [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 15:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
:Well, maybe. Everyone aren't so keen on new categories here. Which comics are you thinking of, for a start? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 20:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
::We definitely need to reach an agreement as a community on when to create new categories. Something simple like a minimum of 3 (or, say, 5) existing comics. Since we're already at the proposals' portal... what do you guys think about that? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 21:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
:::My opinion: Five would be enough to qualify. [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 09:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
::::I vote for four. But it should also be a reasonable thing to categorize, like sports, not like "sports with Cueball containing at least three anagram words". Wich sholdn't be a problem. :) But the best name choice could be tricky sometimes. e.g. "Film & television", Film & TV", "Film", "Films", or "Movies"? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 12:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
:::
::::Agreed, five should be enough to create the category without having to discuss it. - [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 00:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
: OK, let's start with [[588: Pep Rally|588]], [[1092: Michael Phelps|1092]], [[904: Sports|904]] and [[1107: Sports Cheat Sheet|1107]]. Should be able to find a few more. [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 05:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
::Yeah, it's a broad subject so there are probably several more. -[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 12:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
:::I found another one, sort of, in [[929]] (although it hasn't been explained yet). Should I get the ball rolling (no pun intended) on setting up the category? Don't wanna do it unilaterally and get yelled at. ;) [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 06:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
::::I think you should. On a wiki, getting stuck in discussions which die without a conclusion, to the point that motivated people give up without having done anything, is definitely counter-productive, and phrases like [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Be bold|Wikipedia:Be bold]] are here to remind us of that. Seems like people agreed that you ''could'', and after a while nobody said that you ''shouldn't'', so I'd say do it. - [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 00:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
:I did it without looking here first, because it was obvious there were many [[:Category:Sport|sport comics]]. I have even created four under categories (only one was there before, Chess). There are 10 comics at present that are related to other sports than the five under categories. And given the way Randall thinks about sport (not very much) he still has plenty of comics about the subject. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 07:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

=== Category: Sex ===

I think we should also create a Sex category. There's no ''doubt'' we can find more than three examples. I'll start looking for them and post the ones I find in here; again, I don't wanna create a large category by myself without community consent. [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 09:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
*OK, the ones for Category: Sex that I've found so far are [[443]], [[219]], [[550]], [[1026]], [[575]], [[468]], [[592]], [[320]], [[1101]], [[417]], [[713]], [[672]], [[230]], [[436]], [[940]], [[532]], [[649]], [[176]], [[1006]], [[596]] and [[717]], and I'm sure there are many more. Should we create this category? [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 23:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

:Same as [[#Category: Sports|above]], do it. Oh, already did; well, all the better. - [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 00:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

=== Category: Flowcharts ===

Hello, the line "Randall has made use of flowcharts before." in today's comic explanation made me want a [[:Category:Flowcharts|flowcharts category]] to navigate into...

As it didn't exist, I proceeded to create it, but as the log says, [[User:lcarsos|lcarsos]] deleted such a category in November, saying ''"Insufficient differentiation from Category:Comics with charts, diluting the depth of comics tagged charts"''.

I don't agree with that, and I think we could profit from such a subcategory. I found those pages fitting it:
* [[94: Profile Creation Flowchart]]
* [[210: 90's Flowchart]]
* [[488: Steal This Comic]]
* [[627: Tech Support Cheat Sheet]]
* [[844: Good Code]]
* [[851: Na]]
* [[854: Learning to Cook]]
* [[1195: Flowchart]]

So? - [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 10:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
:Weell if you're willing to take charge of the category and personally make sure it's added to all relevant comic explanations, go ahead. The usual objection to making new categories is that we admins can't remember all the categories when we're reviewing new explanations, but it's K if you're willing to take up that responsibility yourself. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 11:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
:
:: OK. I did it without waiting for further replies, because I think it will be especially profitable today (to viewers).
:: It doesn't seem a big issue to me if the correct category is not added when a new explanation is made: a passing editor will do it later on... But hey, I'm OK with taking special care of adding pages to this category.
:: [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 12:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

::: I just want to add that Cos' view is indeed the appropriate way to work in wikis: there is no concept of a single author for a page, category, or piece of text, and the workload is meant to be distributed among several editors: it is not necessary that any single editor remembers all existing categories, or knows the wiki markup by heart, or knows how to work with all the features of mediawiki, etc. The reason why wikis can be edited by anyone is precisely a recognition that there *will* be errors and any page can be improved somehow. That reasoning against categories should, IMO, be abandoned, or at most only kept as the opinion of some editors. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 22:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Isnt there a page which lists all the categories? If not, there should be one, and it should be accessible to all. Such a page could be useful when trying to quick-add categories to comics. [[Special:Contributions/117.194.83.155|117.194.83.155]] 13:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:Yes, there is. [[Special:Categories]]. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::Of course, there's a gazillion of 'em, over several pages, so I understand any reluctance to add new categories (having just suggested a new one myself which I feel is justified, but knowing that the upkeep needed may be the key point of contention so remaining philosophical about it).
::A solution perhaps to carry over from another locale that I frequent is to have a "Categories of Character" page, a "Categories of Object" one, perhaps "Categories of Event", and a "Categories of Publication". For each new comic someone can easily check the shorter Character categories list against those present, the Object list against itemsin use, Events, etc, and of course the Publication one has the "Tuesday Comic"/equivalent, and other date-based ones (although isn't that automatic from templated creation? ...never added a comic, but would imagine it is). After that it's a trawl through the miscelania categories (perhaps a meta-category just for them?). But, yeah, a lot of work to set up. Wouldn't wish it on anyone who wasn't already willing to do it, and I remain an anon-IP person right now so can hardly commit ''myself'' as volunteer maintainer of this. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 17:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

=== Category: (Barred/banned from?) Conferences ===

I come here after realising I erroneously posted (in reply) to the Main page Talk, being anonymous (or at least IP-only) and without a list of qualifying articles to support me, just yet, but still wish to put forward the above category before I forget. There's no apparent equivalent, that I found, but it's definitely a recurring meme. I should be back (named or otherwise) with my suggested list of members, if someone else doesn't get there first, but I thought I'd start with the placemarker. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 16:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
:Ok, so I got the bee in my bonnet and spent a few minutes actually looking into this. Revising "Barred from Conferences" (actually more often "Banned" or even "Thrown out of"/equivalent) to just "Conferences", the subset of comics that I can easily find that are involved is *[[153]], *[[177]], *[[365]], *[[410]], *[[463]], *[[541]], [[545]], [[685]], [[829]] and [[867]], but I'm sure there are more recent ones that I didn't spot/recall. One alternative title to "Conferences" is "Presentations", and I'm sure if I'd searched for that I'd have found more potential candidates (less some that might ''exit'' the renamed category). The asterisked ones ''do'' deal with being barred/banned/thrown out/etc, making it still a suitable category in its own right, IMO, but I'll leave it up to your combined musings to decide. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 17:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
::I add [[690]] to the list. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 08:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

::: Great suggestions! I created [[:Category:Public speaking]] and [[:Category:Banned from conferences]]. I also added [[Wikipedian Protester]] to the mix, of course :) --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 21:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

=== Category: Wishes ===

[http://explainxkcd.com/1391/ Several] [http://explainxkcd.com/1086/ comics] [http://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/152:_Hamster_Ball now] [http://xkcd.com/879/ exist] that talk about wishes - probably more. Should there be a category for this? [[User:Z|Z]] ([[User talk:Z|talk]]) 23:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:Doesn't seem significant enough. If you promise to maintain the category you can make it yourself, although it will be cleared out if it gets neglected as new comics are released. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 15:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

=== Category: Artificial Intelligence ===

Hello world.

There are a handful of comics involving Ai - [[1540]], [[1530]], [[1450]] and [[948]] for instance - and maybe it's an idea to give them their own category {{unsigned|Nk22}}

:The usual objection to new categories is that they get abandoned and are too narrow for other people to think of picking them up. If you're going to own it and update it with new comics, you can make it. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 21:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

=== Category: Size Comparisons ===
There are numerous comics comparing sizes of things. I can't get a list right now, but off the top of my head, radiation dosages, money, today's comic, and space shuttles in horses. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 19:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

=== New character category for blonde woman news reporter (from 1699) ===

From today's comic [[1699: Local News]] I just got the idea that there may be needing a new category for either blonde woman and/or comics with news reports. I posted this [[Talk:1699:_Local_News#New_character_category|post]], in the talk page of that comic. Any comments, and if agreeing that there might be one or two different character categories needed then please suggest what they should be called. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
:Agree with Blondie as new character name and with adding a category for news reports. [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 00:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
:Agree with new character category for Blondie --[[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 12:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
:: Thanks for the replies. Could be nice with a few more chipping in. One issue I just found is [[Miss Lenhart]] and ambiguous situations like in comic [[59: Graduation]], where I would remove the miss reference. But then miss would be a sub category of Blondie (or Blonde? which Randall cals the girl in 59) as [[Rob]] is for [[Cueball]]... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
:: I think blondie is fine for a name. Miss Lenhart is another character who uses a similar design so I think treating her like Rob is perfectly acceptable. The only thing more I think we should discuss is the role blondie plays in most of the comics (Like how cueball is an everyman, whitehat is often a strawman, Blackhat is blackhat etc.) [[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 12:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
:::There are also these two that looks like Blondie: [[Mrs. Roberts]] or her daughter [[Elaine Roberts]]. I think this is part of why no one has made the category, as there are already three named women with the same hair. But there are so many other comics with this kind of woman, that I think she should be created. I hope I will get the time, but if anyone has any other ideas than just calling them "Blondie" and letting the other three be an subcategory like Rob is of Cueball then say so now before anyone creates Blondie. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:::Agree with new character category and characters with the same appearance as sub-categories [[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 18:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Based on the discussion she is now called [[Blondie]] --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 07:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 And now there is also a [[:Category:News anchor]] with 15 entries already. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

=== Business Plan category ===

I propose renaming [[:Category:Beret Guy's Business]] into Business Plans, and adding it to [[1721: Business Idea]] [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 08:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
::(Note I added a ":" to your category link to show the link instead of adding this page to the category. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC))
:No of course not, that comic is about [[Cueball]]. This is Beret Guy's business we are talking about here. This category is not about business idea but about what [[Beret Guy]] does just like the page with [[:Category:Strange powers of Beret Guy]]. Both are used in the explanation of who he is. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

=== Category for The Little Prince? ===

How many comics need to feature/mention a certain thing before we need a category? I think there are enough featuring the Little Prince to deserve a Category of its own. {{unsigned|AmbroseChapel|06:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)}}

===Category: Katamari Damacy ===

There are quite a few comics about this game. [[User:DPS2004|DPS2004]] ([[User talk:DPS2004|talk]])

=== "Multiple Megan-like characters" category ===

Since there are more than one Megan-like characters appear in the same panel of at least seven comics, I propose to create the "Multiple Megan-like characters" category. --[[User:Soumya-8974|Soumya-8974]] ([[User talk:Soumya-8974|talk]]) 07:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

=== Category: Mycology ===

6 comics so far reference mycology/mushrooms. I might be a bit biased, but there's other categories like butterfly nets that have the same amount of comics. Also, destroying angels are a huge part of the What-If chapter (book-exclusive) about losing your DNA. It should probably be a subcategory under Biology.

Here is the list (what I found so far at least):

[[2307]] - fungi on the chart

[[2246]] - fungi in the title text

[[1991]] - mycology is a subject on the chart

[[1904]] - see above

[[1749]] - comic is about mushrooms

[[1664]] - comic is about mycology [[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 07:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
:Eh sure if you're keen enough on it '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 08:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

=== Discord category ===
Do we need categories for comics that mention various popular social media clients, such as Google and Discord? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.98|172.69.134.98]] 03:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
:If there are a group of them, then list them, then they can be added. I can think of a couple of Google-related ones (well, Google search-page, not whatever Alphabet is currently doing insofar as social media), but don't have their names/numbers in my head right now. Do the search and list them here for someone to catalogue up?
:I'm not sure there are specific Discord mentions. Noting that just because some unidentified headshot dialogue/notification looks Discordish, it doesn't make it a mention. Too much cross-pollination of appearance. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.252|172.70.90.252]] 09:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

=== Category: Versions ===

I've noticed that a recurring subject in xkcd is comics which list versions of a real thing, only some of which are real. Closer to the end of the list, the versions get more and more crazy.

Here are some examples I've found:
* [[2719: Hydrogen Isotopes]]
* [[2172: Lunar Cycles]]
* [[2860: Decay Modes]]
* [[2369: All-in-One]]
* [[2924: Pendulum Types]]
* [[2614: 2]]
* [[2816: Types of Solar Eclipse]]

Let me know if you have any objections or suggestions for this category. Thanks! [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 14:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Another example: [[2848: Breaker Box]]

=== Category: Ghosts ===

I've also noticed several comics featuring ghosts, but not Ghostbusters. These could become a category, and maybe Ghostbusters could become a sub-category of it.

Here are some examples:
* [[1108: Cautionary Ghost]]
* [[2836: A Halloween Carol]]
* [[1393: Timeghost]]

Let me know if you have any objections or suggestions for this category. Thanks! [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 16:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

::Nice proposal. I'd proposed a category "infernal" for all things demonic and hell-related (some demon strips are not in hell; some hell strips do not have demons). There is already a "religion" category. Could we maybe shift them all to a "supernatural/mythological" category and then allow for subcategories? {{unsigned ip|172.71.90.85|21:12, 5 November 2024}}

::Great suggestion! Perhaps "Infernal" could be a subcategory of both "Supernatural/Mythological" and "Religion"? [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 19:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::Hang on, it seems that someone else has already created [[:Category:Ghosts]]. [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 20:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Category: Comics with Hidden Images ===

There are a couple of comics I've read that have hidden images in them. They are [[1000: 1000 Comics]] and [[1213: Combination Vision Test]]. This might seem small, but I think it should be a category. [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 20:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Category: Crystal spheres ===

Three comics that I have read ([[2121: Light Pollution]], [[2765: Escape Speed]], and [[1189: Voyager 1]]) mention or include crystal spheres. [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 16:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

=== "I Got Fired From"-type category ===
I think that to improve this website, you should add a category that contains only the i got fired from the <x> because i did <y>.

does this exist already or did someone already propose this idea? Im pretty new to this website, so can someone pls tell me?

thank you {{unsigned|I HAVE NO NAME2|07:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)}}
:It has been suggested, but doesn't hurt to propose it (properly!) somewhere like here. It helps if you state the candidate articles for which it would initially be used. (I'm aware of two, but having a third or more would be useful - very easily to draw an arbitrary line through any two points, without there being any actual real trend between those points or any other points to match that line.)
:And welcome. You're new and have been adding minor comments to many article Talk pages, I notice (as well as other edits). Do note that it really doesn't need you to 'tag' every page you read, but it looks like your heart is in the right place and so if you perhaps ease yourself more into the wiki I'm sure you'll make further valuable contributions. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.35|172.70.90.35]] 10:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
:(Addendum - did not realise you were using [[User:I HAVE NO NAME2]], not [[User:I HAVE NO NAME]] just now when I corrected your contribution. If you're the same person, then my comments stand but you are going to create confusion. But still all the best to you. If you're ''not'' the same person, the general sentiment still applies.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.62|172.70.91.62]] 10:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

=== News Category ===

I propose that we add a News category, as proposed by user Ok123. There’s a news anchor category, but we can put news anchor under this category and include comics about newspapers, such as [[750: Book Burning]] and [[1062: Budget News]] [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 20:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

=== Category: Thought Experiments ===

I'd like a category for CLASSICAL thought experiments, including {{w|Schrödinger's cat}}, {{w|Maxwell's Demon}}, and the {{w|Trolley Problem}}. A good list of examples is available halfway down the Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment#Examples . I'm highlighting "classical" because enough of the XKCD strips could constitute original thought experiments in their own right. I'll start searching now and will post a list of a few qualifying comics shortly. Sorry about the IP address. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.103.68|172.71.103.68]] 18:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
:[[45]], [[1016]], [[857]], [[384]], [[1233]], [[1465]]. [[1925]], [[1938]], [[3006]]... (Just based on a quick search. There are loads more. Bonus points for the term "Gedankedank"). {{unsigned ip|172.71.98.42|18:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)}}

== Adding Ratings for Explanations ==

I found [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1652 today's explanation] excellently written however that is not always the case. Frequently explanations are walk through of the conversation that are too wordy without any succinct explanation of why or how a strip is funny -- while many of those low quality explanations are not strictly "incomplete" they could benefit from a careful rewrite. I was wondering if we should add a rating tool such as " ''Was this explanation helpful? yes/no'' " so as to identify explanation that could benefit from improvement without having to be tagged as "incomplete". [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 17:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
:We have a rather prominent discussion page for feedback, do we really need an additional add-on for this? I did a little research and found that other wikis use [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Rating semantic rating] and [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ArticleRatings article ratings], which I can install if enough other users want it. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

== New Speculation Sections ==

I often see a lot of speculation and conjecture within the explanation of the comic itself. I don't think it has any place in the explanation but I know many editors enjoy speculating and interpreting the comic and the meaning behind it so I've decided to start this discussion on whether we should provide a section where we can provide different speculations.

What I am thinking would not be like the discussion page, where comments are made and discussed, but an edited and reviewed section which outlines different speculations and interpretations of the comics themselves and perhaps even the author's intent.

Of course tone and presentation should be held to the same standards of the comic explanation but I think this would be a good way to better organize a review of the comic.

I have been away too long to remember if there are any comic explanations with something like this so I have no idea how well it would work.

As an example;

This part from comic 1642: [[Gravitational Waves]]

" It seems that Randall knew in advance about this announcement because this comic was published on a Thursday, not following the normal publish schedule, to coincide with the announcement "

Is well supported, and rather likely correct, conjecture which belongs in the body of the explanation because not only is it backed by strong evidence but it provides background on the comic and the time in which the comic was released and aids in understanding the comic itself.

However, this part from comic 478: [[The Staple Madness]]

"From just reading the comic by itself, one may presume that in the last panel, Cueball has been stapled to the ceiling (as obvious evidence to Megan that Beret Guy has indeed been abusing her staple gun). According to the comic's official transcript, however, it is in fact God who is speaking."

Is almost as equally well supported and certainly a valid interpretation of simply the comic. It is only refuted by the official transcript. I believe it is important to acknowledge and may even be a more humorous interpretation than the one which is provided by the official transcript.

If we added a speculation section (or something of the sort) then we would have a place to talk about this interpretation more freely and expound upon it more.

[[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 15:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
: Problem is the whole "explanation" is actually conjecture. None of us the author, we're all just guessing. [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 15:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

: Many of the current explanations are conjecture, that's true but not every explanation. Providing information on the science or mathematics behind a particular comic is not conjecture. Stating whether the author intended to belittle the field or state that one field is superior over another (unless fairly explicitly stated) is. And there are many things which can be inferred without being simple speculation. Not every comic would need a section like this, and not every comic needs a trivia section, and I'm not ready to start adding this proposed section myself. But I think it should be considered. [[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 15:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
::The intention of the discussion pages was to serve as a place for people to put their conjecture and reaching interpretations of the comics. They're presented alongside the explanation to make people's interpretations more readily visible. Some people may have trouble distinguishing an ungrounded interpretation of a comic from an explanation of it, and they will insert weak text into explanations. If you find something you disagree with, feel free to bring it up in the discussion section and edit it out of the explanation liberally '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

== Unixkcd ==

Hello everyone. I was just wondering: is there anything on http://uni.xkcd.com/. Because I was just looking and the only thing I found on Unixkcd is a mention of a bug in [[1350]]. There is not even a mention on the April fools article.
:There's nothing on this site, there's a couple of novel tidbits on the xkcd site that are at best tangentially related to the comic, as Randall originally intended to make xkcd.com his personal site for hosting his own projects. That particular one doesn't show up in any comics. Also, proposals might not be the best place to put this. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 08:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
::I added the unixckd information to [[721: Flatland]]. According to [https://vimeo.com/78912850 Randalls Øredev 2013 talk] unixkcd was the April Fools' prank for April 1st 2010. [[User:Condor70|Condor70]] ([[User talk:Condor70|talk]]) 09:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

== fix a page ==

The page Comics featuring Summer Glau is missing:
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/526:_Converting_to_Metric {{unsigned ip|108.162.241.130}}
:Done. In the future, you can add categories yourself, just scroll to the bottom and follow the template the others go by. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 03:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

== New xkcd book out. ==

Any chance of posting a section of explanation pages for the cartoons in the new xkcd book, hopefully explaining some of the cryptic red notes? Thanks! {{unsigned ip|199.27.133.102}}

== Comics with header text ==

Several comic have some header text, such as [[851]] or [[1052]]. Shouldn't there be a category for them or something? I think it is quite a notable feature. [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 15:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
:I feel like it's not a particularly defining feature, it feels like making a category for comics that have frames with no borders or something, it's just a technique Randall uses. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 07:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
::To me it feels more like a second title text. It is not technically part of the comic itself, but is a separate piece of information included with it on the xkcd website. There is a category for comics without title text, this is the same, only reverse, in my humble opinion [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 07:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

== purpose of detailed transcripts ==

There are two styles of comic descriptions in the transcripts. Some
are fairly terse, giving only the information required to understand
the comic (e.g. "Cueball is talking to Megan, who looks excited").
Others give lots of graphic details, as if one should be able to
reconstruct the picture from the description (e.g. "Cueball, on the
left, is talking to Megan, on the right. His left hand is pointing to
her. Megan's arms are raised above her head and her excitement is
shown by short lines around her head..." and so on). The former style
used to be the norm, the latter has become increasingly
common in recent months.

Being visually impaired, I am extremely pleased with the terse style
of transcript, and have no interest in the verbose style. To me it is
useless and sometimes fairly annoying. Of course, this is a community
and I can happily live with it if others find it useful.

So, I'd like to know who needs detailed, graphical transcripts, and
for what purpose? Were they requested by some users, or did those
writing transcripts just decide to adopt this new style? If there is
a clearly identified reason for describing pictures in detail, fine.
If not, I vote for switching back to the old, terse style.

Zetfr 14:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

:Sorry we did not see this at the time. As we can see you finally found ears for you comment after [[1798]] and a new discussion has begun on [[User_talk:Kynde#Transcript_TLDR.3B|my user page]]. (Should probably have been here?) But anyway I'm responsible for your problems, and I will try to write less in the transcript and add "other important" either below in the trivia or below the main comic (as maybe - Detailed image description...) It was meant as a way to search for any thing in the comic if you needed it. I guess most people do not read the transcript, so of course annoying if it is not useful for those who always need to read it. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 16:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

== Rename Science Girl "Jill" ==

Following the Precedent of "[[Megan]]" and "[[Danish]]" (but oddly enough not [[Rob]]), I propose that we rename [[Science Girl]] Jill, as per [[1662]]. This could serve to give her an easier name and to use in cases where the character doesn't have a connection with science but seems to be the same girl. [[User:Sensorfire|Sensorfire]] ([[User talk:Sensorfire|talk]]) 18:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
:The only time she's called Jill is in Jack and Jill comics (of course), and the only reason you'd want to do that is since [[Randall]] displays them similarly. In some cases Science Girl is even clearly older. We might do that if there was a [[Child-Blackhaired-Ponytail]] character, but these characters are always either Science Girl or Jill. Also, Jill has very, very few appearances anyway. [[User:Jacky720|Jacky720]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]]) 21:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

== Make an official transcript site ==
I've already taken the liberty of making {{template|transcript}}, and think we, together, can do better- which is why I'm implementing [https://jackm.000webhost.com/transcript.html this site], in order to display the official transcript in its intended format. However, it is bugged, and could do better if moved to explain xkcd. Is anyone in on this? [[User:Jacky720|Jacky720]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]]) 21:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
:The transcript site doesn't seem to be accessible. Is the project dead? If it's not I can try to help. [[User:Errpell|Errpell]] ([[User talk:Errpell|talk]]) 21:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

== HTTPS Links Back to XKCD Interfere with Random Button ==

The Links back to the comics that are present just above the comic itself on the wiki pages (and adjacent to the next and previous links) provides an HTTPS link back to XKCD. However, this interferes with users who want to click that link, and then click `random` - because `c.xkcd.com` does NOT support HTTPS, and thus clicking 'random' after returning to xkcd from explainxkcd does not work. These links should be switched back to HTTP.

--[[User:9000 volts|9000 volts]] ([[User talk:9000 volts|talk]]) 21:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

== Rearrange for our visually impaired friends. ==

I have a great friend who is blind and he uses this site to "read" XKCD so we can talk about it. However, there are two things that he finds frustrating. The first, while it means no harm and most readers gloss over it, when listening to the content of the page every day it can become demeaning to hear "it's because you're dumb" every time. I certainly agree, I use explain XKCD because I am significantly dumb-er than Randall, but my friend uses it because he's blind. This is not that big of a deal, but a friendly suggestion.

The second suggestion is to move the transcript section to the top before the explanation so as not to spoil the content of the comic with user explanation right away--in the case that those listening to the article are in fact smart enough to get the joke before needing an explanation.

Thanks for your consideration.

== Incomplete in spotlight ==

The incomplete comic in spotlight should be changed more often, the current one is not even incomplete. [[User:Dontknow|Dontknow]] ([[User talk:Dontknow|talk]]) 16:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

== Duplicate Navigation tools at bottom of page (please!) ==

I'm enjoying revisiting xkcd canon through the lens of Explain, but frustrated that after studiously reading through the explanation and discussion, I have to scroll back up to the top to get to the Next button.
What would the harm be in duplicating the buttons at the foot of each page?
Thanks for considering this.
Regards

That would be nice, would help a lot. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes. [[User:Dontknow|Dontknow]] ([[User talk:Dontknow|talk]]) 19:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I really would like this. And it seems simple enough to add, without seriously degrading the existing interface.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.230|162.158.154.230]] 05:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Murray/NJ

:{{Done|Done!!!}}  It was defintely not simple, at least for me, but I managed to do it. Check [[{{LATESTCOMIC}}]] for an example of how it looks and works. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

== JSON endpoint ==
There is a [http://www.xkcd.com/info.0.json endpoint] to retrieve information about the comics on the xkcd website. However the info there is not complete, specially when it comes to the transcripts. explainxkcd should provide a similar interface. It would be very useful specially for bots/scripts. The commmunity could help completing the information on the xkcd website and/or provide a new interface. The transcript are already retrieved from this website and a copy can be found [https://github.com/nhatzHK/randi/blob/master/json/xkcd.references.json here]. If there isn't already a complete file or databse with all the information, this file could help building it. However, this document has been compiled by scraping the html of explainxkcd, so there's some errors in it. These errors can be avoid with a clear and easy to access interface like JSON, similar to what is available on the xkcd website. [[User:Errpell|Errpell]] ([[User talk:Errpell|talk]]) 20:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
:Maybe there is a mediawiki addon to support a JSON file. Any ideas? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

== Suggestion for small improvement to interface ==
Am I the only one that wishes the Previous / Next buttons were repeated at the bottom of the page? After reading the explanation, I often want to go to the next one in sequence.
(Obviously, I don't check this wiki every day :)
Scrolling back to the top isn't hard, but having the buttons near the bottom would make navigation easier.

Hope you agree!
Murray in NJ

PS: Aha! I see others have suggested the same thing :) {{unsigned ip|162.158.75.232}}
:This was also mentioned before. I don't agree because the layout is based on the original xkcd site. '''Protip''': Do not "scroll back", just use your keyboard. The magic key is called "Home". --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

:::{{Done|Done!!!}}  It was defintely not simple, at least for me, but I managed to do it. Check [[{{LATESTCOMIC}}]] for an example of how it looks and works. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

== mediawiki things ==

could admin please update to the latest version of mediawiki and add the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Timeless?useskin=timeless timeless skin], thx. also would help if you added <code>line-height: 1.5em</code> to the edit box (<code>#wpTextbox1</code>) while making it taller to compensate, or added the 2010 code editor to aid readability. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.4|162.158.92.4]] 11:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

== The state of "incomplete" explanations and an unified policy ==

Hello, everybody. Recently I went through the "incomplete" explanations and I saw several problems... I think I better split this into sections.

'''1) Many seemingly old and complete explanations are marked either with various creative variations of the auto-generated tag or something along the lines of "rough draft".''' I have personally removed several incomplete tags during the last days, sometimes adding few information before doing so, but usually not. But there are so many of them and it just would not feel right to take it upon myself to reap them all, so, if anyone can spare a few minutes to quickly scan them and remove (or update, in some cases) the tags, it would be nice. Here is a list of explanations with this particular problem, for convenience: [[1874]], [[1906]], [[1908]], [[1912]], [[1915]], [[1919]], [[1925]], [[1926]], [[1929]], [[1930]], [[1937]]

1940 and 1941 also seem complete IMO, but given how recent they are, they could be given some time.

'''2) Some incomplete tags seem like abuse of the feature.''' [[1909]] is probably the best example of this. Table might be nice, but it is not necessary to explain the comic, it would be just "gilding". There is nothing wrong about perfecting complete articles, but marking an article incomplete because someone got an idea how it could be done (and is too lazy to do it themselves) should be discouraged IMO. Other examples: [[1904]] - here I actually disagree with the proposal - why should information that does not represent percentages be represented using them? - but that's my personal view. [[1895]] - this one is asking for further perfection of a perfective information. [[1688]] - a '''huge''' example, asks for something that would require quite a lot of effort without helping anyone understand the comic, a cool project, but not needed for the article to be complete. [[1701]] - I really don't think this is necessary and the explanation is already twice the size I'd expect for such simple comic (*obligatory personal opinion disclaimer*).

'''3) Some tags are just... vague.''' [[1856]] and [[1733]]. "Someone could maybe improve this" applies to pretty much everything in the universe, sorry.

'''4) A policy proposal.''' Here comes the second half of the topic title. There appear to be two conflicting schools of thoughts among editors. Some seem to prefer long, meticulously detailed explanations. Others, including myself, prefer short and concise explanations. On more than one occasion, this has led to mess, so I think there should be some official policies about what kind of information should be considered considered necessary, useful, and superfluous. Obviously, every comic is different, and defining hard rules for this is impossible, so maybe "guideline" is a better word than "policy" here. Here are some suggestions about what this guideline could contain (please, take this as a "sub-suggestion", if a guideline gets accepted, but will end up containing nothing out of this, I will still be happy):

* NECESSARY: named people, groups, organizations, websites, works of art, geographic locations etc. should be briefly introduced, unless they can be presumed to be universally known (e.g. Google, Shakespeare, New York). Obscure words should be defined. Scientific and technical terms should be explained.
* SUPERFLUOUS: recursive explanations - an explanation that mentions concepts that themselves need explaining, but were not relevant to the comic itself.

I guess that's it. Maybe a little disclaimer that I don't have much time now, so I may not be here to further lead this discussion. Maybe I should have waited with posting this when I do have time, but that may not be for a long time, so for what it's worth, here it is.
--[[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 12:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

:Your "policy (or guideline) proposal" is that what's widely excepted here. There are some overwhelming explanations and you are welcome to help on more precise writings. But in general there is no censorship here, less important content may be moved to a trivia section below the transcript. Irrelevant content (who decides that?) may be moved to the talk page with a given reason. I'm also a fan of "short and concise explanations" but who will judge what this really is? Further more I really dislike many of those tables, it's bad layout. But changing this takes a lot of work. [[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 13:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

::The main reason why I want there to be an official policy is so the process of marking explanations as complete can be more straightforward. There would be a community-approved list of things an explanation needs to contain, if an explanation has all that, it is complete. Of course there would still be lot of room for interpretation because every comic is different and coming up with rules that fit all is impossible, but I believe this could still be a massive improvement over the current state.
::Also, '''please''', when I say something is merely a sub-suggestion, I mean it. Your reply gives me the feeling you understood my proposal as something along the lines of "We should make it an official policy that explanations should look like this:", whereas it was more along the lines of "There should be an official policy about what explanations should contain. Here is an example of what such policy could maybe look like:" [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 06:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
:::In general I don't think this is a big issue. The vast majority (99%) of the comics is ''not'' marked as incomplete and those you are citing here should be discussed at the corresponding talk pages. Thus I don't see a ''massive improvement'' anyway.
:::However we can enhance the proper section at the [[explain xkcd:Editor FAQ|Editor FAQ]] by one or two concise sentences. But when you say ''"There should be..."'' nothing would happen; that's why I say: ''"We should make it"''. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 09:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

== Tables vs bold text ==

There are many, many, many comics with several things mentioned in the comic that need to be individually explained, and there are two ways we can do it, one being tables (for example: [[1930: Calendar Facts]]), the other being using bold text to separate paragraphs into sections (for example: [[1972: Autogyros]]). The thing is for the most cases, it seems like we should be using tables, but then using bold text to seperate paragraphs looks better, and is also easier... So when should we use tables, and when bold text? [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 12:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
:IMHO we have far too much tables - a structured floating text is much easier to read. Consider this:
:*A ''List of all planets in our solar'' system with a few columns for distance (in km, mi, and AU), size, and temperature. That's a classical table.
:*The table in [[1930: Calendar Facts]] contains far too much text in many cells. Try to read this on a smartphone. And furthermore on my ''Google Chrome for Android'' all the tables from this comic are not shown at all when using the ''Simplified View''.
:*Or compare this: [[1363: xkcd Phone]] and [[1549: xkcd Phone 3]]. I prefer the floating text and even more when I'm using a mobile device.
:But that's only my opinion.
:Nevertheless I'm also working on a real mobile version of this Wiki (similar to Wikipedia) and that will require some restrictions to the layout to get it properly rendered. But this will not happen before the FIFA World Cup 2018 is over ;) --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 13:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
::Agreed. Narrow columns with simple facts are ok, but longer text should not be put in a table. --[[User:SlashMe|SlashMe]] ([[User talk:SlashMe|talk]]) 10:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
::: I second this. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 11:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
::::Please check also this new [[explain xkcd:Editor FAQ|Editor FAQ]] and the belonging talk page. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 13:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
::Any updates? (Why) is it not just a matter of installing [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:MobileFrontend the MobileFrontend-extension]? :) (See also above: [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Mobile_friendly_website Mobile friendly website]) [[User:Coverbe|Coverbe]] ([[User talk:Coverbe|talk]]) 16:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

== Add the comic to the edit page ==

While editing the explanation, it would be nice to be able to see the comic on that same page, especially for the transcript. (it's difficult for mobile editors to see two pages at once)
:Please sign your comments, and that’s not possible from what I know, considering how this website is set up. (I can still edit fine on mobile) [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 13:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

== Dark theme/night mode ==

Should I explain this?

It's for all of us who edit the wiki at 1am and like our retinas.

Firefox has a [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/dark-theme-enhanced/?src=recommended Dark Theme Extension], and it looks pretty good on the Wiki. [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/dark-theme-for-google-chr/annfbnbieaamhaimclajlajpijgkdblo Chrome does too], but I haven't tried it out.

== Change dates to match ISO 8601. ==

Can we change the timestamps to match [[1179: ISO 8601]]? I'm surprised this hasn't been suggested earlier [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 20:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

== Add bookmark ==

I have used some simple javascript to create a bookmarklet that automatically opens the wiki-page of the xkcd page that you are reading. I would like to provide it on the wiki. It works as follows.

1. Make a bookmark, give it a recognizable name.
2. For the url, enter the following: javascript: document.location = document.URL.replace('xkcd.com','explainxkcd.com');
3. Create the bookmark. To use it, open any xkcd page and click it to go to the corresponding wiki page.

Thanks for considering.
[[User:Kwonunn|Kwonunn]] ([[User talk:Kwonunn|talk]]) 18:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:Thanks Kwonunn! I've started collecting these helpful tools on a [[Browser helpers|new page]], to hopefully make them easier for others to find. – [[User:Yfmcpxpj|Yfmcpxpj]] ([[User talk:Yfmcpxpj|talk]]) 01:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

== Regarding using facebook like and google captcha - Privacy concerns ==

Considering that they track users across various sites, it is not in the best interests of the users' privacy.

https://complianz.io/google-recaptcha-and-the-gdpr-a-possible-conflict/ - This article explains the issues better than I can.

Especially the users who use VPNs affected more - it takes noticeably longer and more tries to pass the google captcha. Preventing/dis-incentivizing new contributors from behind a VPN. There is anecdotal evidence (in the form of reddit posts) that google captcha discriminates firefox users and allow chrome users to get simpler challenges or none at all.

The Facebook like button is an iframe. Users visiting this page(s) have not explicitly consented to being tracked by facebook and google.

I am speculating here, but from the amount of data these two items are gathering, it seems possible to de-anonymize the users who are behind a vpn. I don't trust either of these companies to not grab the free data. In the article listed above, it seems captcha alone can capture a screenshot of the pages without users' (explicit) consent. I haven't read through all the privacy and terms.

Captcha is necessary for avoiding spam. There are alternatives. Anything but google one should suffice. Regarding the facebook like button, I think that should be replaced by a link to the facebook page. {{unsigned ip|172.68.38.88}}
:I think this can be done only by admins, who are currently absent from this wiki. However regarding the Captcha, there is an easy fix: Register here, and log into your account (an one-time e-mail address is sufficient, if you are worried about your privacy). Also please sign your comments to talk pages and other discussions (such as this) - It will not show the IP related to you/your VPN, but one from cloudfare, so it will also not hurt your privacy, but automatically put a timestamp, etc.

:A different CAPTCHA is definitely needed. In my harded version of Firefox Google ReCAPTCHAs won't even work, so I need to open a different profile to edit Explain xkcd. [[User:CyanDinosaurDuck|CyanDinosaurDuck]] ([[User talk:CyanDinosaurDuck|talk]]) 22:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

== Removing unnecessary 3-comic categories? ==

I count eight categories on explainxkcd that satisfy the following properties: 1. They have only three comics in them. 2. They aren't really a comic series; they just feature or reference a comic theme. 3. They aren't Featuring some person or character. In short, they seem to have no real reason to exist. (They're [[:Category:Spice_Girls|t]][[:Category:Wind_turbine|h]]e[[:Category:Ender%27s_Game|s]]o[[:Category:FernGully|n]][[:Category:Giraffes|e]]s.) So my proposal: remove them. -[[User:Account|Account]] ([[User talk:Account|talk]]) 20:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
:In addition, there are [[:Category:Sketches|t]][[:Category:BSD|h]][[:Category:Emacs|i]][[:Category:Identity_Theft|r]][[:Category:Katamari_Damacy|t]][[:Category:Super_Bowl|e]][[:Category:The_Matrix|e]][[:Category:Tournament_bracket|n]][[:Category:Traffic_light| ]][[:Category:Trebuchet|m]][[:Category:Wingsuit|o]][[:Category:Euler_diagrams|r]][[:Category:Pedantic|e]] four-comic categories that also seem rather in need of deletion.
:: Shouldn't the community at least have some time to expand on these categories, in case they're currently incomplete? For example, [[:Category:The Matrix]] is on your list and now contains 7 strips, and [[:Category:Tournament bracket]] got its 5th entry after your post. Even if they're not, a theme category can save some typing in the search box (and is probably also cheaper in terms of server resources than all the searches it'll eliminate). [[User:Promethean|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean|talk]]) 22:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
:::So what do you think the limit should be for categories? Should we create a category when two comics mention the same topic? Three? --[[User:Account|Account]] ([[User talk:Account|talk]]) 16:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
::::Three seems reasonable to me, and I could see a case being made for two. Categories aren't expensive. [[User:Promethean|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean|talk]]) 00:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

== New transcript ==

The transcripts in the comic pages are quite inconsistent, especially in the brackets where you have to describe what happens in the panels. If I understand correctly, the transcripts are for people to copy the text in the comic without having to type them out. If that's the case, then I think propose a new transcript. This transcript should have the comic with the words erased, and then the copy-pasteable words on top of that. Such a transcript would have no room for error, which would let anyone contribute to a seamless transcript.
:The aim of the transcript is to provide a text-only version of the comic that would allow someone who is visually impaired to use a text-to-speech converter to understand the comic and also in a machine readable format for searching (see the [[explain_xkcd:Editor_FAQ#What_is_the_format_of_the_transcript_section?|Editor FAQ]]). Anything using mark-up, images or anything other than plain text will interfere with this and so should be avoided in the transcript. [[User:A(l)Chemist|AlChemist]] ([[User talk:A(l)Chemist|talk]]) 18:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

== Add title text and heading to transcript section ==

It has always bothered me that the transcript did not include the title text since it contributes so much to the humor of the comics. Also, it looks to me like the comic heading is sometimes included as part of the transcript and sometimes left out. I checked the previous proposals and did not see any discussion of these issues. Please consider having a policy going forward of including the heading and the title text within the transcript. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 22:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
:To my understanding (and also others, see discussion directly above) one of the main points of the transcript is to make the comics searchable, the other is, to make it readable when images are not an option. In both cases the comic's name and the title text mentioned above and below the image should be sufficient. I personally think this convention is fine. [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

::Pardon me -- (and, '''<big>''thanks'' for your patience</big>''') -- if this is too off-topic (/slash "boring") or [[wikt:TMI|TMI]] (see {{w|Information overload#Web accuracy}} e.g.), '''...OR''' if this should have been posted elsewhere ...instead of here.

::IMHO the term '''"title text"''' is a misnomer. I think the term is used to refer to the little (or, '''BIG!''') pop-up -- (kinda like what is sometimes called a <code>"tooltip"</code>, but ... aren't those usually pretty '''small?''') -- that appears when one "hovers" his mouse [pointer] over an XKCD cartoon. ...at least, according to '''the "Talk:" page section''' [[Template talk:comic#The template field called .22titletext.22]] which was added almost 3 years ago. I think that calling it a <code>"BONUS text"</code> would be even better than calling it a "caption". However, [to me], '''either one''' of those terms would make sense ''WAY'' more than calling it a '''"title text"''' ... for reasons which are stated in the [Template] "Talk:" page section mentioned (and ... '''LINKED TO''') above. '''<big>Any Comments? . . ''' *** Thanks! *** for listening!</big> --[[User:Mike Schwartz|Mike Schwartz]] ([[User talk:Mike Schwartz|talk]]) 08:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

:::Hi Mike, I see your point, and yes, something like "bonus text" might be a bit more descriptive. But FWIW, I think the reason it's called "title text" is because that's the text that appears in the <code>[https://www.w3schools.com/tags/att_global_title.asp title]</code> attribute of the HTML <code>[https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_img.asp <img>]</code> tag of the comic's image on the xkcd.com site. For example, at https://xkcd.com/2364/, the code for the comic image looks like this:
<pre>
<img src="//imgs.xkcd.com/comics/parity_conservation.png"
title="Bloody Mary is made of antimatter. It explains so much."
alt="Parity Conservation"
srcset="//imgs.xkcd.com/comics/parity_conservation_2x.png 2x">
</pre>
:::In there, you can see the title text as <code>title="Bloody Mary is made of antimatter. It explains so much."</code> See [[title text|here]] for more explanation about that, and some discussions about it [[explain xkcd:Community portal/Miscellaneous#Common mistake|here]]. – [[User:Yfmcpxpj|Yfmcpxpj]] ([[User talk:Yfmcpxpj|talk]]) 03:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

== Wikipedia links. ==

I think the links to Wikipedia should have symbols, so it's not confusing which ones lead to other comic pages.

== It's time to remove the HTTPS lock icon ==

Explainxkcd should do the same thing that browser makers have done: treat HTTPS as the modern standard, and mark HTTP as the deviation instead.

Here are appropriate replacement icons:
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unlock_Icon_Red_(32_bit).png
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unlock_Icon_Red_(4_bit).gif
- [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 12:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

== New page for Randall's regular column in the New York Times ==
Randall Munroe has been writing and illustrating a monthly science column in the New York Times. I suggest a page in this Wiki, indexing those columns. For some reason the New York Times itself does not provide such an index. If they ever do add one, we would still have a topic article here, similar to the one we have for the What If blog, that could link to their index. --[[User:JohnB|JohnB]] ([[User talk:JohnB|talk]]) 00:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
------
=== New York Times column: Good Question ===

'''Good Question''' is a more-or-less monthly column written and illustrated by '''[[Randall|Randall Munroe]]''' in the '''[https://www.nytimes.com/section/science Science section of the New York Times]''', beginning in November 2019. The columns give serious answers to science questions, in Munroe's inimitable style.

The New York Times website ordinarily requires registration, and its content is always protected by copyright. Most particularly it is ''not'' under [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License] the way [[xkcd]] is. The good news: anyone can register for a free digital subscription to the New York Times, with access to 'recent' Science articles among some others, but outside of that only five articles per month. See [https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/info/help/freesearch.html Free Articles].

Unlike for many of their other regular columnists, the New York Times does not provide a clickable link either on the byline '''Randall Munroe''' or on the column title '''Good Question'''. The following tables are intended to correct that omission.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ New York Times columns ''by'' Randall Munroe
! Column !! Headline !! Byline !! Date
|-
! SCIENCE
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/science/what-makes-a-red-sky-at-night-and-at-morning.html What Makes a Red Sky at Night (and at Morning)]
| Randall Munroe
| Aug. 13, 2019
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/science/randall-munroe-moon.html If I Touched the Moon, What Would It Feel Like?]
| Randall Munroe
| Nov. 12, 2019
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://nytimes.com/2019/12/10/science/earth-size-mass.html Is Earth Getting Bigger Over Time?]
| Randall Munroe
| Dec. 10, 2019
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/science/human-running-speed-quadruped.html How Fast Can a Human Run?]
| Randall Munroe
| Jan. 21, 2020 / Feb. 7, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/science/worst-odor-smell-thioacetone.html What’s the World’s Worst Smell?]
| Randall Munroe
| Feb. 17, 2020 / Feb. 26, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://nytimes.com/2020/03/10/science/question-randall-munroe-bobsled-gravity.html What if Galileo Had Dropped Bobsleds From the Tower of Pisa?]
| Randall Munroe
| March 10, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/science/pulsar-xkcd-munroe-stars.html How’s the View From a Spinning Star?]
| Randall Munroe
| April 7, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/11/science/traffic-barrier-rice-krispies.html What’s the Sweetest, Crispiest Way to Stay Safe in a Car Crash?]
| Randall Munroe
| May 11, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/science/randall-munroe-question-eggs.html Can You Boil an Egg Too Long?]
| Randall Munroe
| June 9, 2020
|-
! GOOD QUESTION
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/science/neutrinos-snowball-randall-munroe.html Could You Make a Snowball of Neutrinos?]
| Randall Munroe
| July 7, 2020
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ New York Times columns ''about'' Randall Munroe
! Column !! Headline !! Byline !! Date
|-
! LINK BY LINK
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/business/media/26link.html This Is Funny Only if You Know Unix]
| Noam Cohen
| May 26, 2008
|-
! BITS
| [https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/techs-favorite-cartoonist-enters-mainstream-publishing/ Tech’s Favorite Cartoonist Enters Mainstream Publishing]
| Noam Cohen
| March 14, 2014
|-
! SCIENCE
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/science/randall-munroe-the-creator-of-xkcd-explains-complexity-through-absurdity.html He’s Glad You Asked]
| Kenneth Chang
| Nov. 3, 2014
|-
! BOOKS
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/books/randall-munroe-explains-it-all-for-us.html Randall Munroe Explains It All for Us]
| Alexandra Alter
| Nov. 23, 2015
|-
! SCIENCE
| [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/science/randall-munroe-xkcd-science-textbook.html Randall Munroe, XKCD Creator, Goes Back to High School]
| Kenneth Chang
| March 21, 2016
|-
! SCIENCE
| [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/18/science/document-Munroepages.html Randall Munroe of ‘XKCD’ Explains the Human Body, Elevators and the Saturn 5]
| (Actual pages from '''{{w|Thing_Explainer|Thing Explainer}}''')
| March 21, 2016
|}
------

: Looks goods to me, you should probably make that an article of its own, maybe [[New York Times: Good Question]]? --[[User:SlashMe|SlashMe]] ([[User talk:SlashMe|talk]]) 22:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

: {{notice|I went and added the page, here: [[New York Times: Good Question]] --[[User:JohnB|JohnB]] ([[User talk:JohnB|talk]]) 02:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)}}

== Bring back the {{rw}} template! please ==

Can someone restore the <nowiki>{{rw}}</nowiki> template? I insist on its existence. I further assure that it will be of much use. It was deleted by an admin. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 06:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
:nm, did it myself. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 04:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

== Link to high-resolution images? ==

The wiki includes the "standard" resolution images, but would it be worth adding a link to the higher-resolution image on each page? It appears that this could be automated in at least a strong majority of cases: if the standard image is ''xyzzy.png'', the hi-res one is ''xyzzy'''_2x'''.png'' . [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 22:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
:Please stop adding this to the explanations. This is not needed. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
::The high-resolution image was quite useful in parsing the "Amelia's Farm Fresh Cookies" comic. I'm not convinced that the hi-res images are commonly known. I've been reading xkcd for about 7 years and hadn't heard about them until I stumbled across a mention of them in one of the Discussions here. What is the harm in having a one-line ''link'' here? -- not, I emphasize, the actual image, which would take up a great deal of space. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 17:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
:::I didn't know about the high-resolution images either. While it might be a bit repetitive to add a full sentence to every comic's explanation, I agree that having ''some'' easy way to link to the hi-res image on xkcd.com could be handy. For example, maybe a "hi-res" or "2x" button before the "Next >" button above the comic in [[Template:comic]]? That's a bit extreme, but I added an example template, derived from the existing [[Template:comic]], to demonstrate how that could work:
:::* Template: [[User:Yfmcpxpj/Template:comic 2x test]]
:::* Demo: [[User:Yfmcpxpj/Sandbox#2x comic template test]]
:::With those changes to the template, for all comics as of [[1084]] the "2x" button would automatically appear. (No need to go back and change all comics.) This assumes the images hosted on explainxkcd generally have the same filename as on xkcd.com, but there are optional parameters to override the filename or omit the "2x" button altogether for specific exceptions. I'm not suggesting we actually go ahead and implement this; but if there was enough interest, an admin would be needed anyway, to make the changes within [[Template:comic]], which is currently protected. – [[User:Yfmcpxpj|Yfmcpxpj]] ([[User talk:Yfmcpxpj|talk]]) 23:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
::::FWIW, I like this. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 20:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
:::::My proposal is that a bot should add it automatically to the description of each comic image when available so that it does not take up space anywhere and is easily accessible. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 13:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

== Proposal to replace the top section with this... ==

I have come up with a new design for the top section of all community portals...
It’s located here... https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=explain_xkcd:Sandbox&oldid=199882 — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 14:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
<hr/>
{|-
|valign="top" width="80%"|[[File:Crystal Clear app ktip.png|left|120px]] <big><big>Proposals</big></big>

Ideas to improve the wiki's design and organization can be added here. {{AddNewSection|Page=Explain XKCD:Community portal/Proposals|Text=(+post)}}

|valign="top" xalign="right" width="100%"|[[File:Crystal Clear app package settings blue.png|50px|link=https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Technical]][[File:Crystal Clear teamwork.png|50px|link=https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Coordination]][[File:Mop.svg|50px|link=https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Admin_requests]][[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|50px|link=https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous]]
|}

== I made a template for welcoming new users. ==

{{Welcome}}
<hr/>
Any ideas? Suggestions? Objections? — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 16:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
: this is now in at the top of the Main Page --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 16:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
::Why? This looks like a template intended for (newly created) UserPages. And it replaces interesting data from the frontpage with something not useful for casual visitors (or even non-casual lurkers). I'd undo this change in an instant if I had authority to do so. ((The template looks good, to clarify, just obviously not intended to be in that location.)) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.154|141.101.76.154]] 01:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
:::[[User: Jeff|Jeff]] is the owner of explainxkcd you dingus. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] [[User talk:Beanie|talk]] 13:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

== comic groups ==

i think we should have a tech problems list of comics ( as there are quite a few)
:We already have a category for it. [[:Category:Cueball_Computer_Problems]]. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 13:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

== Archiving interactive comics? ==

Has the possibility of archiving interactive comics been discussed? Of course, users can view them on the original website, but it’d be nice to have a working backup of sorts, especially considering some of the interactive comics haven’t aged too well in terms of compatibility or support (e.g. Umwelt displays a blank page for me.)

It probably wouldn’t be possible to do so directly from mediawiki, but I’d be happy to experiment with cloning a few of them on another server, or as simple PHP pages that could be embedded, if it would help. Most of the interactive comics appear to be implemented mostly in client side JS anyways, so replicating them shouldn’t be too bad.

[[User:Tague|Tague]] ([[User talk:Tague|talk]]) 13:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

== Replace head shots of characters in the wiki with these new and high quality head shots! ==

https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/n2u28r/i_took_head_shots_of_the_reccuring_characters_and/

These are not only upscaled, but are all squares and have all the features of the characters. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 03:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
:I think you should do it (because higher quality = better) :] [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] [[User talk:Beanie|talk]] 13:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
::There seemed to be no objections, so I went ahead and did it. — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 12:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

== Cleaning up [[Special:WantedTemplates|Special: Wanted Templates]] ==

I decided to take a look at the list of wanted templates. Imagine my surprise when I see that a lot of the templates wanted were mis-capitalizations or misspellings of existing templates. I hereby request permission to create redirect pages for some of the most popular errors.
I intend to do five, wait a week, and do another five as to not spam the wiki. I will not begin for a week, at which point I will only proceed if nobody has said no OR a moderator has said yes. May I proceed? [[User talk:Quillathe Siannodel|{)|(}]][[User:Quillathe_Siannodel|Quill]][[Special:Contributions/Quillathe_Siannodel|{)|(}]] 11:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

== Knit Cap ==
Sometimes Knit cap has long hair, sometimes short. Is Knit Cap meant to be a male character that sometimes has long hair, or is Knit Cap sometimes female? I want to clear this up before I finish editing [[1350: Lorenz]]. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] [[User talk:Beanie|talk]] 13:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
:Hm, in the 'Enemy Pikachu used theft' scene in [[1350: Lorenz]], Knit Cap's hair looks merely slightly unkempt. From this, I will assume that Knit Cap just sometimes has long hair and is always male. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] [[User talk:Beanie|talk]] 13:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
::Ok, the official transcripts say that Knit Cap is 'A guy in a knit cap'. I will take that to mean that Knit Cap is definitely male.

== We still need to complete some explanations like this one: ==

I think should change the banner shown at the top of every page to show a comic that is still incomplete, like Hoverboard or something. [[User:Sure|Sure]] ([[User talk:Sure|talk]]) 21:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

== Update MediaWiki ==
explainxkcd is running MediaWiki 1.30.0, which reached end-of-life in June 2019. There are likely security issues because of this, so please update MediaWiki to the latest version (or LTS) using the instructions here https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Upgrading [[User:Cam1170|Cam1170]] ([[User talk:Cam1170|talk]]) 19:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
:It seems like the mysql is too outdated for the upgrade [[User:Starstar|Starstar]] ([[User talk:Starstar|talk]]) 17:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
::Upgrade MySQL then[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu|talk]]) 03:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Does anybody know how to contact an admin for this? I have no clue. [[User:Cam1170|Cam1170]] ([[User talk:Cam1170|talk]]) 03:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

== Allow Users to Edit their own talk page if not auto confimed ==

I can edit this page, but I can't create my own talk page! [[User:Starstar|Starstar]] ([[User talk:Starstar|talk]]) 17:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

== Upgrade Icons ==

The icons look quite old fashion (the ones on the sidebar and the ones above the editing text area), could they be replaced? [[User:Starstar|Starstar]] ([[User talk:Starstar|talk]]) 23:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
:They probably could be, but changing icons the moment they're not absolutely cutting-edge just means using new icons that are as easily edged-out (as tastes change yet again), meanwhile annoying those who prefered the first set and rather wouldn't see a revolving door of ever-evolving aesthetics.
:If I had a vote, I'd say keep the simple glyphs we're used to. If any are not totally obvious (perhaps some would not be, without the text captions) consider revising, but I think you'll get less agreement on what new images to use than that which would advocate the retention of the current ones.
:Alternately, it would definitely be on-theme to find Randall-drawn illustrations to replace them all. But the constraints of adapting (say) any particular stick-figure-world depiction of randonmess to ''meaningfully'' replace the current Random Page icon (at the same scale!) might be less than optimal.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.57|172.70.162.57]] 01:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

== Make searchbar not case-sensitive ==

The way the search bar is currently set, it only suggests comic links when what is being typed is capitalized ("Assigning Numbers" rather than "assigning numbers" for instance). Would be nice if we could make it not case-sensitive :D [[User:Char Latte49|Wielder of the Staple Gun]] ([[User talk:Char Latte49|talk]]) 02:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
:Good idea. [[User:Marethyu|⟨Winter is coming⟩ Marethyu]] ([[User talk:Marethyu|talk]]) 17:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

== Do not allow ordinary users to edit redirects that are just numbers ==

This overrides the default page you're sent to when you check a comic; e.g. recently a vandal edited the page entitled "2614" so it overrode the actual page, [[2614: 2]] on the main page.
:The problem would be when creating a new page and the overrides are needed... [[User:Marethyu|⟨Winter is coming⟩ Marethyu]] ([[User talk:Marethyu|talk]]) 17:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

== ExplainXKCD discord (or other platform)? ==

I'm just saying if we had instant messages, pings etc. there would be a lot faster reaction to vandals.
The community portal is hard to get attention from and comments are all very well and good but conversations on Discord could get very quick response, and people could request edits, organise page re-writing etc.
Idk if we can get "official" backing by anyone high up but we could make one anyways?
:The problem with platforms like Discord or others is that we can't guarantee that everyone has access to them; on the wiki, anyone can edit, while some people may not have access to discord or such. A possible solution would be having a sort of service built into the wiki, but not sure how that might be done. Besides, this is a wiki, not an xkcd chat site. This is a good idea, though. [[User:Marethyu|⟨Winter is coming⟩ Marethyu]] ([[User talk:Marethyu|talk]]) 17:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
::Anyone can create a discord account like anyone can create an account on this wiki. You don't even need a dedicated client/app as it can run in browser. Just like the wiki. Just my two cents. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 11:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
:::Some user may not wish anyone to be able to contact them outside this wiki. You do not need an acount to edit this wiki... [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

== So, I got a question about transcripts. ==

A lot of comics show links (e.g.: all the ones with a drawing of wikipedia on it), and the transcripts don't really have a standard. In the transcript, should it be an actual link or just blue text or what? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.52|162.158.79.52]] 15:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
:I'd say that if the linked thing (presuming it's a real linkable target!) is linked in the Explanation, it doesn't need to be (re)linked in the ostensibly flat-and-descriptive Transcript.
:And I know that some Transcripts are hypertext formatted to emulate the thing they are transcribed from (whether bolded, enbiggened, sub-/superscripted and and/or given the hue) but maybe ''primarily'' the "<code>[:Text that describes the text]</code>" should be explaining the details, in case the screen-reader (or text-searching algorithm grepping the Transcript text for "green text" or "superscript" instances can't quite work it out from the various style-tags that can be applied to that effect in so many an various ways.
:But this is IMO, I don't know if there's a specific policy about it, but it is how I've seen it vaguely applied... Not everywhere quite so consistently, though. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.128|172.70.91.128]] 20:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
::We try to keep links and explanations out of the transcript. The link and the explanation goes in the explanation section above. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

== Use 2X Images ==

Apparently xkcd.com provides double-sized versions of almost every comic if you add '''_2x''' to the end of the image name. For instance,

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/watches.png

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/watches_2x.png

Since we are in 2022 and computers can load high-resolution images just fine, and they are easier to read, I propose that this website should use the provided double-sized images. Really, I think Randall ought to be doing this himself as well. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.18.107|172.68.18.107]] 12:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

:While I agree with using the higher quality images which are default on xkcd.com for many people, there has been [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Link_to_high-resolution_images.3F discussion] about this issue already. At the moment, the consensus seems to be to continue using the 'standard' size to 'use less space,' and instead link to the higher quality image on the image page. —[[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 14:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

::I think I may have mentioned it on that link (or similar), but often when the 2x image is used (or even an unwise too wide image/unbreakable-line-of-content) the explainxkcd site cannot sensibly handle it and it forces the default 'page width' of stuff into a zoomed out narrower column to the left (including the margin-line normally inset a dozen or so pixels in from the right) so that browser-window can display the whole of this wide element.
::While "saving space" does apply to server resources and viewer download bandwidth/quotas (e.g.[https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/unreliable_connection.png 53kb] vs [https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/unreliable_connection_2x.png 109kb]) may seem insignificant, screen-space can be badly hit by this.
::The motherlode xkcd site has code behind it to (usually?) serve the right image for the right displays, but explainxkcd isn't currently equipped to do the same choose-and-provide (which would need ''both'' images uploaded to it and a revised {{template|comic}} implementation, once we work out the method it could use). And I've never seen any case where the 'low quality' comic is conversely too small and narrow to appreciate (though occasionally the larger one reveals minor drawing details that have been obscured by the downscaling), just when the _2x one makes everything ''else'' too small.
::...this may not apply to everyone's browser implementation, but it definitely happens, and consistently, on my usual Chrome and/or Firefox on Windows and/or Android platforms (according to which system I happen to be on at the time). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.147|172.70.162.147]] 21:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
:::ExplainXKCD actually does have the capability to do this. For example, see [[1079:_United_Shapes]]. It generates multiple images, automatically choosing one based on screen size (similar to how xkcd.com does it). The bot could use the `imagesize` parameter to keep the image within the page's width by using the 'standard' image size. This does add a button labeled "click to enlarge," but if that is annoying, the comic template can be modified to hide that button if specified.
:::Here is what it might look like:
:::{{cot}}
{{User:Theusaf/Template:comic_2x
| number = 2647
| date = July 18, 2022
| title = Capri Suns
| image = capri_suns_2x.png
| titletext = [As security is dragging me away] "Come on, at least I didn't make the mistake in the other direction!"
| imagesize = 315x317px
| noexpand = true
}}
{{cob}}
:::which is clearer than the original comic page and the same size. —[[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 05:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
::::As specificaly implemented above, I certainly see no immediate problem (need to check across machines/devices), but I suspect that part of the mechanism here is the "imagesize = 315x317px", which seems like it would need (albeit by the page-create bot, algorithm8cally) to be tailored to the 'input' image, not always in this ratio). I'm not technically conversant with the nature of your back-end scripting and doubtless it's all possible (scripts can do almost anything... once you know that they (may) need to do them and rewritten them to catch all the contingencies ;) ), but I don't know know if that's something you've accounted for (e.g. test with a three/four-panel wide comic, or the Earth Temperature Timeline or whatever, and see if it can facilitate them all nicely). Not to mention that if theusafBOT goes offline, the manual-add instructions (as used prior to your replacing the prior functioning bot, for which I thank you) also need this extra step of user involvement to be done, whereas usually the fallback manual method needed little thought in this direction (or indeed however much carbon or silicon there is in the 'brain' involved) except for exceptional circumstances or those rare prior slip-ups by Randall.
::::I'm just going through the first obvious issue (to me), didn't mean to concentrate so many words on just this before even checking everything else! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.80|172.70.91.80]] 09:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
:::::Basically, on the backend, the bot will fetch both the small and the large images, and measure the size of the small image, which is what it will use for the <code>imagesize</code>. I have actually used this system in the past for this bot, but was told to revert it due to the "click comic to enlarge" text. As for if the bot goes offline, there is no problem with falling back to the small image, and if editors want to, I can also provide instructions for using the large image. I'm mostly just waiting to see what others think about this. Are there any other problems to consider? —[[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 14:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

== I'm making an App that collects web comics ==

My original idea was to use the rss feed present on xkcd, and other webcomic websites, but now im starting to wonder if there was a way to make a better service, that allowed users to maybe look at older comics, and explanations and such as well, and thats how i happened to come across explainxkcd.com. The RSS Feed for this website, would be pretty helpful, if it were like reddit's but apparently, the rss feed is only maintained for the home page. I was wondering if you guys provided that data through an API or something? Also are there wikis for other famous comics like this one? Any other suggestions and ideas for the app are welcome 🙌🙌.

== Comics edited after their publication ==

many more comics have been changed than are in Category:Comics edited after their publication ! please add them (i already have done two i remember off the top of my head) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.223|172.70.134.223]] 12:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Bumpf

== What if 2 book page creation ==
What if 2 has come out, but I don't know which page is to be created. There is already a comic under the same name. [[User:ClassicalGames|ClassicalGames]] ([[User talk:ClassicalGames|talk]]) 08:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

== Default to 3 Section Headings for Each Explanation: Non-Obvious Info, Recap, and Background Trivia ==

This is a proposal that all new comic explanations should, by default, have 3 Sections:

'''I. Explanation of the Non-Obvious''' (an actual explanation of the non-obvious elements of the comic for the average reader who might not understand the references/joke/relevant science)

'''II. Full Recap'''

'''III. Background Trivia'''

Most of us can agree that Category I is where the value of this website shines.

But today, all 3 of these categories of explanation are typically merged together, making it hard to find the Category I nuggets of goodness.

If we make these 3 section headings the default on every comic explanation, then this default will helpfully nudge editors to put the juiciest stuff up top, and not to clutter that section up with fluff or trivia.

——

As an example, take the recent comic #2878 about Astronomer Happiness and Supernova distance.

The main thing a lay reader would want to know — the Category I information — is…

..That the shape of the graph is probably a clever reference to a Light Curve, a type of supernova graph

..why astronomers like it when a supernova is close, and what happens when it gets too close

Everything else in the (currently) very wordy explanation gets in the way of the lay reader finding out these two things. It’s a bunch of Category II and Category III info that makes it hard to tease out the Category I info. It’s not BAD information, but it’s sandpaper. It’s friction slowing down the average reader.

Obviously I could go in and edit this particular comic, and I often do this kind of edit, but I think this issue pops up for most explanations, so I think changing the standard default interface will help everyone put their contribution into the right section.

In sum, my proposal would elevate Category I info to the top of each explanation, so instead of full recaps, we get right into the explanation that is going to be most efficiently illuminating for the average, non-expert reader, answering the most common questions.

[[User:Laser813|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813|talk]]) 10:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
:In general (if I get dibs on the edit, or think I can legitimately re-edit/rearrange), I do try to go for "hook, line, sinker" format (i.e. establish the basics, relate that to what the comic shows, move on to any relevent speculations/extrapolations), very like your setup. Though it is often ''much'' too complicated (multi-layered, cross-disciplinary, etc, so that maybe it has to be interwoven 'mini explanations' per tabulated item) so I'm not sure how easy it would be to enforce a strict structure. I think there's merit to the principle, though. Assuming we can all agree what each comic needs focus on (apply that problem to the following proposal too!), as I've occasionally inserted a sort of "first you need to know <subject>" into an established cold-start explanation ("you see <foo>" only for a later editor to consider it more an afterthought and shuffle it to later ("you see <foo>" ... "<foo> is part of <subject>"), or variations on such layouts. Especially as different people have different ideas as to what's obvious/can be keyword-wikilinked and what needs more waffle to properly enlighten readers.
:Also, prosaic variation is a good thing. Too formulaic and it could be (whilst accurate) considered too robotic, so some leaway should really always be allowed as we collectively bash together a community interpretation and elaboration. Within communal guidelines, clearly. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.203|172.69.194.203]] 15:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

== FAQ Style Editing should be the norm ==

Simply, we should experiment with more FAQ-style explanations.

We think of the top questions that the average reader might have about a comic, and we use those as bolded headers to explain the most curious/confusing/subtle/sciency parts of the comic.

The structure would be this (using a recent comic as an example)…

'''Q: Why did Randall use this shape of graph?'''
A: It’s likely a clever reference to a Light Curve, a similarly shaped graph in the study of supernovae that…

'''Q: Why do astronomers prefer it when supernovae are closer?'''
A: It makes it easier to glean information because…

[[User:Laser813|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813|talk]]) 10:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

== sidebar revamp ==
I think that the sidebar looks plain and it should have a new design. It could be voted on by users [[User:Moderator|Moderator]] ([[User talk:Moderator|talk]]) 02:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
:In leiu of you telling us what you think would be better, my starting vote is that I'm perfectly happy with that 'plain'. If it has the links I might need, why does it need a reskin? Or, worse, a functional revamp which probably removes the easy to use bits I was using already.
:...could you do a mock-up screenshot (or render equivalents directly in markup) of before/after side by side, at least? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.120|172.69.194.120]] 03:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

My biggest problem is it doesn’t scroll down with you which can be a big pain [[User:Moderator|Moderator]] ([[User talk:Moderator|talk]]) 01:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
:Don't know about anyone else, but (when not on a desktop) I read this on a tablet, in landscape, with the effective window quite short (ratio of 1:2 with width, approaching 1:3.5 with already narrowed onscreen keyboard popped up) and if I'm scrolled to the top I see nothing beyond Browse Comics.
:If we assume separate scroll-control on the sidebar, setting Main Page at the top of browser pane gives What Links Here at the bottom. Now, I rarely use the next three links (or at least reach those pages using them), and separate scrolling wouldn't stop me even seeing the even lower Ad bit (but it ''would'' defeat the entire purpose of the Ad, in that position, whether or not I bother to notice it these days).
:So whatever missing about you propose, I'm betting it would impact me. Perhaps not negatively, but I've seen enough awful assumptions about my screen-area in the name of scroll-free design. Including the "give us permission (or not) to give you cookies" popovers where it appears the actual buttons to confirm (or deny, or go somewhere to review and customise, if they have that option) are beyond the bottom of my screen. I can temporarily rotate the screen, of course, but often I just back out and don't bother in those cases. I wouldn't be reticent to rotate this site, on occasion, but ''I'd really rather not have to'', if I can be so selfish and stick-in-the-mud, because websites just are not good to use (even temporarily) in narrow-portait mode. (What's worse is the websites that detect I'm on a mobile platform and redesign styles/placements on-the-fly to 'fit portrait view', assuming a vertical smartphone, ''regardless'' of my actual viewport orientation, etc.)
:So, please, a hard no from me. Notwithstanding that just as solidly "always browse in portrait" people might be overjoyed at changes that would give ''them'' a better site design. But that's a tricky circle to square (or letterbox!), and not what you were suggesting anyway (now we know what it is). I just want to plea that any changes be made with a very good idea of all the knock-on effects of 'improving' certain edge-cases, especially when it comes to yet other edge-cases. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.23|172.70.85.23]] 10:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
==New Logo and Banner Proposals==
:I have new logo and banner proposals for this site.
:They're made on Scratch, an all-ages block-based programming language, and are in the style of Right Click.
:Here they are!
:Logo proposal: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_proposal_for_explain_xkcd.png
:Banner proposal: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banner_proposal_for_explain_xkcd.png {{unsigned ip|172.69.71.37|01:54, 19 February 2024}}
::I can't see the xkcdicity of the logo, really. The banner is certainly flavourful in the right way (does it scale down well? ...is that what your use of Scratch is for, as opposed to standard static Photoshop/GIMP image editing?), but not sure it'll work better for the current top-left-of-page xkcd (with three xkcd figurses idling away, sat on the letters).
::Decent concept art for something else related, certainly. I could believe it was a Randall's-own interactive comic front-end of some kind (which would make sense of the "play button" that is the "►"-bit). Given that it's now in a programming system already, have you tried making a drag'n'click game of the idea of linking/looping the blue-trail, and animating the hanging-on characters? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.29|172.70.90.29]] 13:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
:::It's an arrow, not a play button. Get it right. {{unsigned ip|172.69.71.72|01:05, 20 February 2024}}
::::Hold your horses... I was just trying to find a good reason for the whatever-it-is triangle to be there (gave the example of a 'play' button in my speculated usefulness of it). And it isn't really obviously any more of an arrow (c.f. "→"), either. I like your(?) banner's use of xkcd-figures, just not sure where the logo exhibits any form of being xkcd-related, except by the literal reading of it.
::::Perhaps if it were "xkcd font" (i.e. artfully composited from actual samples of Randall's ALLCAPS comic-writing) then it wouldn't matter so much, but I just wouldn't say it was any more on-brand than the current logo/etc. This being intended as constructive criticism, I hope you understand. And there's more opinions than mine, so maybe I've indeed just missed some point that ''everyone else'' (especially named-users) have already realised. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.5|172.70.86.5]] 02:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

== Regarding precision in the Unexplained popup ==

Would it be possible to add an extra decimal point for the sake of precision? Currently, it shows that 0% of comics are unexplained, which is (as of 13:21 UTC on March 27, 2024) incorrect. It's a small thing, but it's rather annoying. {{unsigned ip|162.158.158.233|13:23, 27 March 2024}}
:With the current 2911 comics (give or take #404), 0.1% would be slightly under 3 comics. You'd need at least three before 0.1% appeared instead of the equally unuseful 0.0%.
:I'm of the "at least give everyone a week before you unilaterally declare it 'done'..." camp, so right now ''just'' the latest M/W/F comic incomplete would hover at a token 0.1%.
:(Actually, from two (0.06...% rounded up) to 4 (0.13...% rounded down. The good news is that it'll be almost seven years until two-rounded-up is insufficient, but also up to six-rounded-down is now "0.1%", if I've not goofed the carries/etc.)
:If going to the trouble of editing it to 1DP, make it 2DP with ''exactly'' the same editing effort..?
<blockquote>
<center>
''Welcome to the '''explain [[xkcd]]''' wiki!'' 
We have an explanation for all [[:Category:All comics|'''{{#expr:{{PAGESINCAT:All comics|R}}-1}}''' xkcd comics]],

and only {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}}
({{#expr: {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}} / {{LATESTCOMIC}} * 100 round 2}}%) [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|are incomplete]]. Help us finish them!
</center>
</blockquote>
:(As of time of posting, the above says "only 2 (0.07%)". From 0.0687049...% rounded up to 2DP.)
:Though given that we're only going to go into the future,{{Citation needed}} I suggest we can state the flat-out number. It's not now really going to be as scarily huge as it might have been, as the actual percentage becomes generally less significant.
:And, for niceness, give it a grammatically/factually agreeable form:
<blockquote>
;General form:
:<code><nowiki>... and {{#ifeq:  | 0 | no |  }} comic{{#ifeq:  | 1 | | s }} [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|{{#ifeq:  | 1 | is | are }} incomplete]]. ...</nowiki></code>
;Zero cases (hardcoded):
:... and {{#ifeq: 0 | 0 | no |  }} comic{{#ifeq: 0 | 1 | | s }} [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|{{#ifeq: 0 | 1 | is | are }} incomplete]]. ...
;One case (hardcoded):
:... and {{#ifeq: 1 | 0 | no | 1 }} comic{{#ifeq: 1 | 1 | | s }} [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|{{#ifeq: 1 | 1 | is | are }} incomplete]]. ...
;Multiple cases (hardcoded):
:... and {{#ifeq: 42 | 0 | no | 42 }} comic{{#ifeq: 42 | 1 | | s }} [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|{{#ifeq: 42 | 1 | is | are }} incomplete]]. ...
;Current cases (dynamic):
:... and {{#ifeq: {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}} | 0 | none | {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}} }} comic{{#ifeq: {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}} | 1 | | s }} [[:Category:Incomplete explanations|{{#ifeq: {{PAGESINCAT:Incomplete explanations|R}} | 1 | is | are }} incomplete]]. ...
</blockquote>
:...easy to replicate to get "Help us finish them!" to change (upon a zero-test truth) to "But they all might be improvable!". Or change the :Cat:Link to not even be a link when zero, with alternate phrasing dodged over to in order to avoid "no comics are incomplete" in other ways.
:I wrote the above for minimal nesting of overlapping conditions. You might prefer just to go with <code><nowiki>{{#ifeq: <count> | 0 | <whole "zero cases" version> | {{#ifeq: <count> | 1 | <whole "single case" version> | <whole "plurality of cases" version> }} }}</nowiki></code> - both approaches involve repetitions, but maybe this other one can be given a ''degree'' of wikimarkup-readability within each case, to take pity on future editors. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.166|172.70.160.166]] 16:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

== Hear me out: What If? discussion page. ==

That's it. That's my idea. Go crazy, everyone. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 14:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
:Yup, I've been thinking the same thing. I would like a page on each What If entry. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 07:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
::I've thought about this, over the years. Having 'a page' (rather than the summary table, in the [[what if? (blog)|overview page]], etc) does sound more completist than what we currently have but I then tend to hit the main ontological problem...
::In the What-Ifs, Randall takes a 'simple' question and then ''explains'' the consequences. At length. A 'comic page' structure (starting with how we'd deal with the multiple midpoint images, so we would stray far from using the {{template|comic}} introduction) that followed the header(image,etc)/explanation/transcript/(trivia)/included-comments format would be silly and have many parts inappropriate. Remove the Transcript, for starters. ''Or'' need a mini-Transcript for each 'illustrative' image. (e.g. ":[Black Hat:] What if we tried more power?", several times.)
::Is there an actual need to ''explain Randall's explanation..''? Because that's the only thing 'we' can do. Which is rather silly, and seems like it would take a small (entertainingly rambling) essay and expand it into a large (pedantically rambling) one.
::Or else we just straight-copy the What-If over here as a 'backup'-blag? Allowable, but not exactly a USP, there'll be Internet Archive and personal copies, should things go bad at Randall's end. Not really a noble-cause.
::My suggestion, as to how to cover the remaining "explanation gap" and provide a useful 'service' that's worthwhile maintaining, is ''maybe'' two What If? (Blag) sub-pages:
::#A place to collate all inter-text images (and hover-/title-texts), and Transcript them, for easy searching.
::#*e.g. when you know you want to refer to the "bomb to the eyeball" one (internally or for something external) but think you might not realise where you need to go to (the supernova neutrinos one!) just by scrolling a bare comic list.
::#*Or you'd like to see, at a glance, how many different places the Black Hat Try More Power running joke occurs.
::#*Even if you don't want to open the page itself (160+ 'comics' with say 5 images each, is an 800ish-image page, less rationalising 'repeats' to a single entry), it should at least give you a search result for "dry waterfall" that points you in the direction of the "Niagra Straw" one (and maybe others?).
::#*I could see these being brief Image/Titletext/Transcript/(optional explanatory context), but not enough material to make them separate comic-style-pages in their own right, right?
::#Something of the same 'collation page mechanism' for all those superscript-popup-'footnote' bits. Though I admit I'm not entirely sure for what purpose except that it just ''seems'' like a good "collection page" to maintain. Perhaps to offer updated onward-links if any of the originals suffer link-rot? (But then, that fate can occur to all non-popupped links, so maybe I've chosen the wrong thing to highlight.)
::...the question is, what do you want from it. Bear in mind that if you can creae pages here then you can set up what ''you'' think you'd like to see (e.g. for What-If#1, for starters) then get the community to assess it. Do it as a sub-page to your Userspace, maybe, as proof-of-concept.
::Just because it's not been seen as necessary so far, doesn't mean it's not necessary. I've thought about it a lot (not thst I'm in a position to inplement anything), but I've only decided that I don't see a need for a straight copy (others' views may differ on that) and not enough reason to pester for ''my'' 'ideas' to be fulfilled. But I aint 'in charge' here, and happily so. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.100|172.69.194.100]] 11:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:::You make a fair point. He did already explain in great detail what would happen if [x] scenario happened. It just seems like it would be nice to have a page exclusively for discussing all the ''What If'' articles. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 20:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
::::People just need to make a draft or two and see what happens. Be sure to link a draft here if one is created, I would like to help on it. "I want to learn more and explore this scenario further" is a valid feeling to have. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 07:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

== Randall-ify the Captcha ==

Let's have some fun: Is it feasible to replace the Captcha with something "xkcd-ish" like "click on Randall's work" with a mix of XKCD stuff and generic pictures. If not, how about a replacing it with a quiz like "which of the following IS [or IS NOT] xkcd character" with one obvious correct answer. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.75|172.68.26.75]] 16:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
:are YOU able to create a CAPTCHA from scratch? [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 15:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
::Choose any images that contain user-made CAPTCHAs from the following selection. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 21:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

== Incomplete Tag Vote ==

I think each comic's discussion page should have a section to vote on whether the explanation is complete or not. How long do you think the voting period should be?[[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:Rather than a voting period, I think it would be ideal if people could "vote" on the completeness of an article at any time. As I go through all the old pages, I come across lots of pages that feel a little bit incomplete. It would be nice if we had a measurement of completion that wasn't binary. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 10:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::Feel free to add the incomplete tag again. But don't forget to mention WHY (either in the tag or the discussion or both) you think it's incomplete. :) The tag is mainly there so you can have a list of "incomplete" comics. A comic is either on that list or it isn't. This is pretty much binary. As for voting: If I think an explanation is complete and it bothers me that it's flagged as not I generally juts make a comment in the discussion asking if someone has still something to add or actually knows WHY it's still incomplete. If there's no response after a few days I delete the tag. There's no need to make a voting out of this. And if somone strongly disagrees to you there's always the "Undo"-link ;) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 11:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Sometimes I just feel "this could use more detail," without specifically knowing what the detail would look like. This can be a problem when it's about explaining complicated science: the "completion" of a description of quantum mechanics that is readable by a novice, is very subjective. I am realizing the problem with the persistent voting idea tho: many people will vote something as "incomplete" but wouldn't come back to check on it later. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 12:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm more in the "less is more" camp. Most of my recent contributions to this wiki were deleting parts of bloated explanations: You don't need to explain quantum mechanics unless it's absolutely crucial for understanding the respective comic. Of course, if you are an expert in any given field, [[2501|it's hard to tell]] whether or not the current explanation is sufficient for a layperson and most contributors tend to write "too much". Which is totally fine. People like me take care of the "too much". ;) So, if you are an expert in quantum mechanics ignore "completed" comics about quantum mechanics. Surely you could contribute a lot to it but chances are high that most of it is unnecessary for the comic. Instead ask yourself if you need more information to understand that comic about biology. And if you do, add an incomplete and ask for that information ;) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 12:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:I've been here a long time, effectively back to when there were ''missing'' explanations (other than the "too new to have the barebones put in" ones, these days only seen when the current BOT is tardy or offline for some reason), and I've seen the Incomplete template change from the useful 'infill marker' to become a regular joke-tag of a similar nature to the Citation Needed. Yes, I agree that both of these (and the Because You're Dumb" tag) are perhaps a bit confusing for new users (like the one who badly edited out a link, just now, apparently thinking it was spam, because of the way it mentioned viagra), but I have grown to see them as community in-jokes (of various degrees of subtlety) that many people seem to appreciate under their current incarnations.
:We've recently removed the Main Page's more literal "there are # incomplete articles" announcement, which leaves the purpose of ''more accurately'' using the Incomplete tag a little less important. Apart from letting us dive into the (purported) list of Incomplete Explanations, one of the main ''serious'' purposes of the Incomplete tag is removed, leaving the now consistently employed purpose of doing a "Created by a THING OTHER THAN THE BOT" joke much more prominent.
:Really, all articles are potentially incomplete, still. Some more than others. Something big, like Hoverboard or Gravity, might truly have easter-eggs or subtle details as yet not properly commented upon, but there have been edits to ''double-digit'' comics recently which might be considered improvements. As such, there are really only two 'sensible' direct courses of action:
:#Completely remove the Incomplete tag, from use, as all pages are only ever as complete as the eye of any particular beholder, and the more recent pages are ''obviously'' incomplete by their being barely 15 minutes (or a day, or ''maybe'' a week) old. Or being so huge (or Time-like!) that they clearly still haven't been 'completely' documented. Maybe the BOT can add a Created By The Bot tag that gets wiped out by the first serious attempt at human editing, but if we wish to lose this part of our site culture so readily then why ever have it at all? A wikivote system is not really that accurate under these circumstances, for a number of reasons that I needn't explain, so go straight to assuming that any such 'vote' would pass, right from the off...
:#Embrace it for its THING OTHER THAN A BOT usage, alone. Don't be so eager to remove them just because you have no personal changes you'd wish to see. (Votes or not, there could always be another editor along in a minute who has, unlike the rest of you, picked up on an obscure visual pun rendered in what turns out to be hieroglyphs, or similar.) If we have to cull them (not a given!), then let it be an unstated rule (or a stated one?) that if there are more than (e.g.) half a dozen then the 'least amusing' may be removed by the first editor who wishes to express a critical opinion. Just the one at a time. No reinstating, no resurrection, no adding to old articles that never ever had a 'joke Incomplete' before, no entirely new joke (but you can refine what's there, to a degree), just a rolling (and not necessarily consecutive!) set of the "finest natjve explainxkcd wit". Or at least the least objectionable surviving examples of same.
:As a practical guide, the "reason why you think it is Incomplete element" could be entirely served by in-line tags (the "What?" and "Why?" and "Date?" things you might see elsewhere). Perhaps we could even do ''both'' things by instead having a "Complete" tag ''explicitly'' for BOT-REPLACEMENT-type tomfoolery (and tongue-in-cheekness about Completion, as we might currently be about Incometeness) from the off. That might confuse the newbods, of course. At least until it doesn't, and then they're not newbods anymore...
:The companion tag, for Incomplete Transcript, is presumably going to serve as it currently does (as a still serious hint as to actual Incompleteness), albeit that I've noticed a trend for the first editor of a brand new published comic to (possibly ''after'' doing the BOT-replacement joke, or after the editor who did ''only'' that) go straight in and enTranscript it (to varying degrees of accuracy and completion), whether or not they also then remove that specific tag-template at the same time. It seems that some people are more comfortable at providing a ''Transcript''ion-service than they are at establishing even the seed of an Explanation. (Or they only have enough time to do the latter, to the level of detail they wish to achieve in the moment open to them.)
:This is, of course, a cultural issue. All the above (from me) is just my own perception of practical aspects, notwithstanding those opinions already expressed before that (and elsewhere). I don't speak for everyone. And, as a perpetual IP, technically I should say that I don't speak for ''anyone'', either... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.140|172.70.160.140]] 14:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

::I like the idea of removing the Incomplete tag. What do you think? [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 14:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::I greatly approve of a {{what}} tag, as a Wikipedian that's actually really funny. I would want to keep the Incomplete tag, as I think it has purpose, even if it no longer represents a goal to achieve. I think this website will never reach 100.00% completeness and that is good, actually. [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 14:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
::Okay. If someone wants to they can just ignore the incomplete tags. [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 14:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

== "As of <now>"... ==

What would be rather useful is an <code><nowiki>{{As of now}}</nowiki></code> template (or similar wording, and perhaps an "as of now"-cased alternative for use mid-sentence). There are many articles that will have words along the lines of "this has not yet happened, as of August 2024" or "this situation is continuing, as of August 2024". Every now and then, someone will come across one of these with an older date (perhaps only just out of date, perhaps years old) and [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1858:_4th_of_July&curid=20285&diff=348082&oldid=315524 edit it accordingly]. You could also seek them all out, deliberately, with a bit of effort in the search-bar.

(Note that "as of" does not ''always'' need updating, there are non-dated examples such as in [[1074: Moon Landing#Trivia]], static transcript versions, like [[1071: Exoplanets#Transcript]] and other instances where the text "as of", with or without a date, really does not need to be changed... but sometimes is anyway by a well-meaning passer-by.)

Sometimes, this can be done along with another useful edit/update/revision that is spotted, or is just one of the revisions that some other need for change conveniently allows. But it seems a bit vague to rely upon occasional attention. Instead the template will implement something like "<code><nowiki>As of {{Monthyear}}</nowiki></code>" (here having to use <code><nowiki>{{#time:F Y}}</nowiki></code>, ..."As of {{#time:F Y}}"...), though there's the possibility that a parameter-mediated switch can let it alternatively become a to-the-day-level format option (at which point you could even implement/calcuate something like {{template|Yesterday}} would be) or just to the year-level. (Or add {{template|As of this year}}, {{template|As of this month}} and {{template|As of this day}} separately.)

This would negate the need to ''just'' poke and prod any article that happened to 'need' updating every month (or year, or possible day). And to deal with the possibility that some of these cases might actually need to be edited because "as of" does ''not'' now apply, include within it a {{:Category:As of}} membership, letting anyone who is interested keep an eye on these aggregated 'As of's, ready to jump in there and change it to some straight up "Up until <fixed date>" equivalent should any one of them actually no longer apply.

...obviously, I can't even begin to create the template page required, but I'd be happy to work on the exact wikimedia code required if anyone thinks it needs anything but the most basic transcluded formatting and doesn't know how. Open to discussion, and I'll tag on more if I happen to see that discussion developing. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 18:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:As an addendum/change to my above suggestion, considering a simpler {{template|as of}} (and {{template|As of}}) which does ''no'' automagical continuous updating (just gives the "as of" literal on its own), but still guarantees "Category:As of" membership, so that it doesn't actively give wrong (new) date+circumstance relationships in the likes of [[1047: Approximations]]. In that, the several mentions of populations can safely stay as old years until someone rewrites the proposed value and assessment as well, but it still could be a task to pursue every new year after checking the Cat for likely comics needing a quick check'n'edit.

== “Grammar Bot” ==
I’m working on a python based bot written with the Pywiki library that aims to use the replace.py scripts to fix simple grammatical mistakes, e.g. correcting Citation needed placements, cleaning up extra spaces, etc. I will be posting the code in a few weeks after I finish it (I’m a bit busy at the moment with school and orchestra) so the entire community can view it. Any thoughts on the idea? Thanks. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 21:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:First thoughts are that there are going to be so many exceptions. I definitely agree with the idea of {{template|Citation needed}}s being made consistent (if only it weren't sometimes complicated{{Citation needed}}), as well as that of mysterious extra spaces. But that's not really grammatical. Punctuation, in the first case. I fear a full (or even fragmentary) grammar-checker is going to be complicated and give many false positives.
:At least at first, perhaps have it ''report'' what it thinks it has found. You may discover definite times that it isn't necessary and it would indeed create new errors.
:At the very least, run it with two checklists: One to do an automatic replace.py and one to just report. Start with the first list empty. Introduce potential ones to the latter, review all the reports carefully, ''then'' move any sensible-looking ones to former.
:And have it not fighting other bots (particularly theusafBOT), perhaps selected users (e.g. the likes of Kynde, and of course yourself) or indeed itself (if it makes a change that might inadvertently trigger another 'check') by excluding such changes for a recheck/rechange. Keep a record of what it changed, so that if anybody reverts/recorrects something that seems to have gone wrong it doesn't force it 'wrong' again. At the simplest, give a whole page a decent time-out and/or number of subsequent limits before it ''considers'' a new change. Implement from the start the option of a 'whitelist' (of pages it can ignore) or 'blacklist' (of rules it shouldn't apply, or at least actively apply, to a given page), so you can quickly manually add a throttle-down by simple config-file rather than have to add in a code-kludge when something obviously (in hindsight!) needs correcting about the way it works. And also maybe throttle it to have no more than one bot-edit per hour (while starting from scratch) to not swamp the system and give the rest of us time to assess any errors it has made (and its successes!) - you can unstick that throttle later, when you consider it tested with all its backlog of microcorrections.
:...there are a few other guidelines I would suggest, but the cautiousness already present in the above approaches might mean that they are left as not so important. Just consider what ''could'' go wrong before unleashing it on our world.
:And all power to your elbow, it is of course something we all might have considered (I know I have... not that I have the login for it, but what really stopped me was knowing how badly I could mess it up by getting just one detail wrong if I tried it).
:Among changes/alerts I would have it make would be cases of {{template|cn}}, {{template|citation needed}}, etc, instead of the 'main' template. Plus []-links to either wikipedia pages (most of them should be {{template|w}}-templated) or explainxkcd.com pages (most of them should be [[]]ed), although there are even then some exceptions. It'd also be nice if it can identify all Talk (and Community Portal) contributions that were not signed (more complex, as some may be after the fact, or have been after several years and further editings). I know how I'd do all this, or think I do (only upon starting to do it can I be sure I've actually theorised it correctly!), but I mention this mostly to point out how ''you'' might want to cautiously implement ''your'' ideas. HTH. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.15|172.70.86.15]] 00:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::you have made plenty of wonderful points that I clearly have not thought about-quite the critical oversight on my part. Is anyone interested in collaborating? I don’t think that my skills are good enough to satisfy all of those points. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 01:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::hello? Anybody? Please help… [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 17:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I believe this would be a great idea and also an incredibly complicated feat. Randall is no stranger to using weird punctuation in comics or misspelled words. I think it would be neat if it weren't automated and just reported errors it found so we could manually fix them, which would make its development much easier, but at that point it's very similar to a series of search queries for misspelled words, which we can already do. I have no coding skills so I'm not going to be of help. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 17:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
;Update
I have found a solution to fix most grammatical mistakes, I just need to make sure that it doesn’t correct character names like “Cueball”, not edit war with other bots, come up with a system to log the edits it makes so that it doesn’t revert again, and fix Citation needed templates. I already know how to make sure that it asks me before editing, so I want to create an account to test it out. Does anybody have ideas on what to name the bot? I don’t want to call it 42.book.addictBOT, since the username would be a bit clunky. ToriBOT could work, but I’m also open to any other names. Feel free to reply to this or reply to me on my talk page! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 20:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

== "dark mode" ==
add dark mode [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 09:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:See [[User:Certified nqh/common.css]] or copy/paste my old [[User:42.book.addict/common.css|common.css]] page history into your common.css page: -42.book.addict [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.208|172.69.134.208]] 16:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::ha, thx tori, nqh's common.css works like a charm :) [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 08:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

== reddit ==
Add reddit- Anonymous {{unsigned ip|172.71.214.80|08:31, 21 November 2024}}
:You probably need to explain what you mean by that. Add reddit discussions to here? Add this site to reddit? Add some simple link to one from the other? Something else? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.163|172.70.162.163]] 13:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::>Add some simple link to one from the other?
::I have no idea what they meant either, but I hadn't thought of this! I could see the addition of a simple link to the comic template, like "https://reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/{{PAGETITLE}" or "https://reddit.com/r/xkcd/search/?q={{PAGETITLE}"
::I don't partecipate much in the r/xkcd subreddit, so i'm not sure if they have structured post titles or even if they posted all the comics, or if it's automated, but I think this could be cool! Some people will likely come from Reddit, so it would be a straightforward way for them to go back. Thoughts? {{unsigned|FaviFake|16:55, 11 January 2025}}

== viewer ==
i propose to add random page to comic viewer {{unsigned ip|172.71.150.14|00:17, 25 February 2025}}
:There's already a "Random Page" link.
:If you mean (it's ambiguous!) a "Random Comic Page" link, then I'm not sure it's needed. There are so many "Comic pages" that it's a fairly good chance that you'll land on one of them for any given click, much more chance within two clicks. The likelihood of not getting a comic within ''three'' clicks will be tiny. Another way to do it is to just use the xkcd.com "Random" button, then (whichever comic you land on, which will be any but [[404]]), change the "xkcd.com" bit of the URL to "expxkcd.com" and... you end up here.
:If none of that really does what you want (especially if you mean something completely different from what I read it as), some more explanation would probably be appreciated. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.164|172.69.79.164]] 01:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
:If you want to make sure to land on all comics, you can go to "Special pages" on the sidebar, scroll down to "Random page in category", and enter "All comics". As far as I'm aware, there isn't really a way to automate this, so you have to keep inputting it manually. [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 06:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
::I think they meant a button on the {{tl|comic}} template. Would it be technically possible to make it such that it works exacly like the one on the official site? --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 17:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
:::It ''should'' be a matter of using [[Special:RandomInCategory/All Comics]], I think, but doesn't seem to work when I try that exact attempt. Perhaps mediawiki or the mediawiki extension is not updated enough, or else I'm getting my wikisyntax slightly wrong.
:::Functionally, though, where the website has its Random button, we have our "go to the xkcd.com original", so more thought is needed before we just "add a button". If we do, we want it where the 'mothership' website does, but we still ought to have our details-and-link-to-original given, and I like it as a (faux) button.
::: Perhaps the {{template|comic}}, where it currently has header 'buttons':
[|<<] [Prev] [#9876 (Grune 32, 2525)] [Next] [>>|]
::: Needs to be changed to maybe:
[ #9876 (Grune 32, 2525) ]
[|<<] [Prev] [Random] [Next] [>>|]
:::...or equivalent. Haven't checked, but if it's a one-line table, can be easily made into a two-line one with colspan=3 (or 5?) in the right bit. If it's just centred, then it should come out Ok, in a simple way. But I'm not too keen on that change, really, and you'd need to actually have the Random->Comic link working first, ''anyway''. So I'm giving you my opinions and (slightly lacking) knowledge, in case that can at least make for the better outcome than either nothing (though not sure that's bad!) or some half-hearted ideas from elsewhere. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.116|172.70.86.116]] 21:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
:::: Unless someone can figure out the requests made by the random in category, a workaround could be to use a (pseudo)random number generator (mediawiki has a [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Template:Random_number template] on their website) to get a random number in the range of 1 - {{template|LATESTCOMIC}} and put in a link to that comic number using <nowiki>[[number]]</nowiki>.
:::: Note: There already is a "Random" template, but it was just using random page and was blanked by the person who made it [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 03:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{Done|Done!!!}}  I tried that wikimedia templaete but couldn't figure out how to make it work. I did it using Special:Random, hoping there aren't too many non-comic pages. Check [[{{LATESTCOMIC}}]] for an example of how it looks and works. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::thanks! (i hav an account now) [[User:Bb777|me, hi]] ([[User talk:Bb777|talk]]) 22:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No problem! There's also a special custom-designed navbar for the original comics: try clicking the "|<" button! (It's not complete yet, but i'm slowly finishing it!) --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 22:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

== Misc pages ==
I would like to propose the creation of an additional category for "miscellaneous pages" that aren't really comics, and which generally have a URL slug that's an English word or phrase instead of a number. This includes xkcd.com/YES ✅ and xkcd.com/NO ✅, both of which currently have articles. It also includes:
* http://xkcd.com/nakedpictures ✅
* http://xkcd.com/spiral
* http://xkcd.com/burlap ✅
* http://xkcd.com/simplewriter
* http://xkcd.com/tree_prank
* http://xkcd.com/blue_eyes (and xkcd.com/solution) ✅
* http://xkcd.com/morphs (archive only)
* http://xkcd.com/chesscoaster
* http://xkcd.com/kite
* http://xkcd.com/dot ✅

...and others as they are found or recovered.

If only we could access the forum thread mentioned on the YES and NO pages! I was able to find a link to the thread here, but it's inaccessible. A
It's the one labeled "Hidden pages on xkcd": https://web.archive.org/web/20170927200737/http://forums.xkcd.com/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=973b8a1dcd0a727a9177aa757108d4f6&start=250

I was able to find the pages above via Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/gixd96/what_are_all_the_hidden_pages_on_xkcd_that_you/
https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/35whzf/what/

[[User:Rumbling7145|Rumbling7145]] ([[User talk:Rumbling7145|talk]]) 00:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

===More pages found===
<div id="List of pages"></div>
Update: I got into the forum page! https://web.archive.org/web/20151206001238/http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=110093

We can now add these pages to the list:
* http://xkcd.com/election (archive only)
* http://xkcd.com/event (blank)
* http://xkcd.com/now (redirect to 1335)
* http://xkcd.com/plus ✅
* http://xkcd.com/sub (archive only)
* http://xkcd.com/temp (archive only)
* http://xkcd.com/test (appears identical to regular site)
* http://xkcd.com/time (redirect to 1190)
* http://xkcd.com/twitter (archive only)

... and also
* http://xkcd.com/cyborg.txt
* http://xkcd.com/channel.html (archive only)
* http://xkcd.com/channel.txt (archive only)
* http://xkcd.com/me.txt (archive only)
* http://xkcd.com/why.txt (archive only)
[[User:Rumbling7145|Rumbling7145]] ([[User talk:Rumbling7145|talk]]) 23:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:We now have everything we need, except the management questions above! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 15:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:Oh and there's also
*http://xkcd.com/bitcoin
:which we have dissected on the page [[Bitcoin address]] (very interesting read!), which is inside [[:Category:Design of xkcd.com]]. Should we use that category instead? --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:Found another one!
*http://holistic.xkcd.com ([https://web.archive.org/web/20120318153220/https://holistic.xkcd.com/ archive link])
:--[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 15:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

*https://web.archive.org/web/20120127051815/https://aram.xkcd.com/

:might as well add this [[user talk:lett‪herebedarklight]] 14:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
:Thanks! I removed the first one bc it was a duplicate and moved your message. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
* https://xkcd.com/verizon/ [[user talk:lett‪herebedarklight]] 04:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
* https://web.archive.org/web/20120321204721/http://mail.xkcd.com/ [[user talk:lett‪herebedarklight]] 04:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
* there was a /personal folder on xkcd, but it's been entirely wiped https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://xkcd.com/personal/* [[user talk:lett‪herebedarklight]] 04:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
* https://xkcd.com/color/rgb/
* https://xkcd.com/color/rgb.txt

===Other===
/test appears as a 404 for me.
[[User:Wobcomic|Wobcomic]] ([[User talk:Wobcomic|talk]]) 20:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Same! Someone should check how it looked in the archive --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 13:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Made page for [[Dot]]. 🥰 [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 19:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

===Problems===
This is great! I think we should first create an article for each of them, and after we have a few articles then we can start to figure out a good name for the category and answer some questions, like:
*Would [[Blue Eyes]] need to be removed from extra comics?
**To do that, we would have to ask an admin to edit the {{tl|comic}} template to allow us to do that.
*Should we add a new parameter to the template for these non-comics?
*Where should the new category be categorised?
*What name should we use for pages that don't have a name, like xkcd.com/dot? (that one is just titled "xkcd.com/dot", unlike pages like Blue Eyes and [[YES]]. Would it become "dot", "Dot", something else?)

I love the idea! I currently don't have time, but I will create these pages eventually. If anyone else wants to chime in, please do! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:"Unnumbered publications", or similar, could cover ''anything'' that wasn't xkcd.com/<digits>. Wouldn't cover replacements ([[2642: No One Was Hurt]] was originally 2642, for example), but that's a different class from deliberately off-series items. Also, given that often they are entirely non-image (the Yes and No), or straight text and multi-image (as per Blue Eyes, or other articles with a WhatIf-ish feel to them), I think calling them "comic"s is stretching the term.
:Though "miscellaneous pages" sort of covers this, I've a feeling that there's at least one... 'entity'... that is built upon multiple actual 'pages', but the list of candidates above doesn't contain any that look like they're what I'm vaguely thinking of. (Neither was it anything like the xkcd survey, or other interactive (numbered) comics, but maybe I'll bring it back to mind sooner rather than later.)
:As to the use of {{template|comic}}, I think we could spring to a (modified, 'inspired-by') template specifically for all these no-number/off-sequence explanation headers. Either explicit "prev=" and "next=" (per comic, ''could'' get quite mixed up if not kept uncontradictory) or a "position=" which could help maintain a list (and, from that, an auto-generated first/prev/next/last 'page ring') without having to subvert expectations of fitting in with the normal [[Template:LATESTCOMIC]] system.
:With the Comic template already equipped to deal with "no-number 'comics'", there wouldn't (in the first instance) be much work needed to "decomic" the new copy, with the exact method of resequencing (if desired) as a parallel series being the biggest question. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.49|172.70.85.49]] 17:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::I have no idea what the last sentence (and a few others) mean(s), but I like the idea of a new template! However, I don't think we should call the category "Unnumbered publications". Isn't that just [[:Category:Extra comics]] but without DSU and No one was hurt? We should establish a criterion to add pages to this category and then figure out a name i think. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 15:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

====What do we name them?====
On this subject, is there any reason why it's [[YES]] and [[NO]] (currently the valid links) rather than [[Yes]] and [[No]] / [[yes]] and [[no]] (currently invalid links)? And I don't mean "why aren't there redirects?", which I don't even think is the right way of resolving this, but what was the thinking? (Which then didn't result in [[DOT]], etc, so there's ''definitely'' some inconsistency, one way or another.) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.92|172.68.205.92]] 21:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see any inconsistencies. The page for yes is titled (and I mean "the name of the browser tab is") "YES" by Randall, same for NO. Instead, the page for [[Dot]] is called "xkcd.com/dot/". We could use that, but that's likely not what Randall intended and might have been a coding oversight. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

== Contentious Topics Template ==

I propose that we create a unified template to slap on contentious and possibly controversial comics, with a warning similar to the one I (and a couple other people added on) wrote in [[3073: Tariffs]]. Now, since I don’t know how to create a template and don’t understand how they work, this is my request for help. If you are available to help write it or have any tips for me, please contact me either in this thread or on my [[User talk:42.book.addict|talk page]]. Thanks! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 18:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
:Hey, I just wanted to ask why you think a new template is needed. {{tl|notice2}} and {{tl|notice}} seem pretty solid. How would a new template differ from them? Btw, I switched the template in [[Talk:3073: Tariffs]] from {{tl|notice}} to {{tl|notice2}} so it's more like a warning, feel free to revert it if you prefer {{tl|notice}}. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::I read the idea (which I'm not too enamoured with, but wouldn't argue against either) as being to create a <code><nowiki>{{contentious}}</nowiki></code>-like template in its own right that (perhaps by using {{template|notice2}} within it) had a standard "This comic, and its explanation, covers a particularly contentious subject. Take even more care than usual when adding to or editing this Explanation/Talk Page" (or similar) text with it.
::It would probably also have the ability to add further (or alternate) info, by standard template parameters, in case you want to personalise it to the ''exact''nature of the contention.
::But, my reasons why I didn't volunteer my ideas immediately are:
::*It paints targets. Anybody who wants to can look at all "pages using the Contentious template" and then troll-bomb them ''specifically''
::*Looking at the Tariffs-comic warning, that's ''huge'', and catering for that with a "standard text + additional notes" would be awkward... if you really believe it should be so huge in the first place,
::*Just by being so obviously available, there'd be creep. "Hey, this comic talks disparagingly about Newton's belief in alchemy... Surely that needs a warning too!", or start off with "Well, nobody's warning about our attitude to the US Senate in this comic, so I can be disparaging" which then practically forces another contentious-tagging (''possibly'' useful, but maybe in making a bolt for the barn door only ''after'' the horse has already made its own bolt through it) as it gets toned-down/-back again.
::And, though I also imagined the Tariff comic ''would'' get some push-back (there was some minor bits, but we seem to have kept it mature enough, IMO), it seems to be quiet. Can't say for sure it would have been without the warning it now has, but it survived ok before that was added. Hence why I'm ''meh'' about the very proposal. Hard cases make hard laws, and hard situations may prompt hard solutions. But I'm dubious about the actual case for the need. (As you say, we have 'freeform' notice+notice2, and I haven't seen proof even that was necessary as it was used.)
::But it would be trivial to implement, give or take some fine-tuning. I'll say that as a positive for the idea. Even if we never really use it as much as we could. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.216.83|162.158.216.83]] 20:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Agreed. Maybe it's a good thing that we have to craft one for each comic we want to tag; this makes sure only actually contentious comics get tagged. An upside to having a specific template is that we wouldn't need to type <nowiki><noinclude></nowiki> every time, to avoid it displaying on the transcluded talk page.--[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 21:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::::mm. all of these are good points. now that i think about it, copy-pasting old warnings and tweaking them as needed is probably better than creating a new template. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 16:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

== New cloudflare feature ==
[https://www.reddit.com/r/tumblr/comments/1k4gozr/banished_to_the_astral_cube/ found out how to stop AI scrapers] [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 16:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

==Proposal for template page==
I was thinking that making a template page with instructions about what should and should not be included in which sections would make it easier for new editors to help. I have no idea how I would do this, though.[[User:BobcatInABox|BobcatInABox]] ([[User talk:BobcatInABox|talk]]) 11:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:Which particular template? Many templates ''do'' contain instructions (from basic to rather thorough), and some common ones are also gone into in the FAQ page. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.245|172.70.91.245]] 20:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2557: Immunity

2025-04-27T17:15:06Z

172.70.91.245:

well, if you look at society as a whole it makes more sense. the reason we have so many mutations is that we have a significant portion of the populous with no immunity [[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.125|172.68.110.125]] 20:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC) mark ifi
:But the mutations come about from the virus replicating a lot, i.e in people with the virus. It still doesn't make sense to catch it, because you have a chance of your infection being the one that produces a terrible mutation [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.130|141.101.77.130]] 22:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
::That isn't how mutations work. Mutations are able to propagate strongly only in environments where there is something killing off the parent species, and where the mutation provides better survivability. Like a functioning immune system attacking the parent virus, but a mutation allows something to slip by. Thus, people with the partial immunity provided by either vaccines or infection, are the ones more likely to create a mutation than new patients with no inherent immunity, or people with natural immunity from previous bouts with related diseases.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:::Luckily we have Randall's subtext to warn us about that middle category of people who know a little about how immune systems work, enough to be dangerous. (1) viruses are not bacteria: antibiotics killing 'ordinary' bacteria leave space for 'nasty' bateria to proliferate; unless you plan on destroying your respiratory tract, there's plenty of space for all viruses and their mutations; (2) viruses have a chance to mutate as soon as they take over a cell; no need to eliminate the parent, all you need is for the mutation to be more effectively infectious when spat out to infect the next victim; (3) anybody catching the virus will pass it on if it replicates; 'partial immunity' makes no difference to short-term reinfection, only to longer-term illness (at which point most sensible people will avoid contact) and ICU usage and death; the only possible negative to partial immunity is that people catch it, don't feel too sick and keep breathing over everybody else; (4) I suspect this comic will sound the death-knell for explainxkcd as it used to be, because even 'named' contributors are coming out with mad anti-vax arguments, and (5) editors, please feel fee to delete all of the above starting at (1) if you feel it to be necessary. I'd prefer you kept the first phrase though... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.196|141.101.69.196]] 00:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
:::Even immune system without vaccine or prior infection is killing Covid a lot, providing plenty of opportunities for more effective mutation. And infection typically last LONGER if patient is not vaccinated, providing more TIME for virus to mutate. So, mutation can occur in both vaccinated or unvaccinated, with hard to compare probabilities. It's true that mutation from someone vaccinated has higher CHANCE to be vaccine-resistant, but on the other hand, seems omikron is from unvaccinated population ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I can see this one annoying a lot of people. It's the lot of people who can already be annoying, so I don't think that's a big problem. (A few, who misread it as about ''vaccination'' giving immunity, may actually think it supports them. I'm not sure we can do anything about that either.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.85|162.158.159.85]] 21:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Would you kindly provide a link to the "Mount Stupid" comic for reference.{{unsigned|172.70.174.119}}

mount stupid: https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2475 ˜˜˜˜

To be fair, if the vaccination would only protect you for ONE infection it wouldn't be worth it. The idea about immunity is that immunity trained by either vaccination or infection will then protect you from '''multiple''' following infections. The problem with it is that in case of covid (or flu), the immunity wanes off with time AND the virus mutates into new variants the immunity doesn't work as well against. Sure, it still makes sense to vaccinate, but just because the virus spread so much you are very likely to catch it. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
:Are you making the mistake (without the other baggage) I mentioned above about misreading the comic? This comic isn't about the vaccination at all. It's about infection. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.22|172.70.86.22]] 22:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
::Infection is the normal method of vaccination. Until recently with mRNA vaccines, almost all vaccines were about infection- either with the disease itself, a weakened version of the disease, or a related disease.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:::As far as I know, while some vaccines do use a weakened live virus, many use essentially sliced-up spike proteins that are unable to spread. However, historically, the first true vaccination (as well as the earlier variolization), did use an unweakened live virus (smallpox for variolization, cowpox for the first vaccination). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.213|172.70.130.213]] 16:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
:(And, to add, if the vaccine just protected against ONE infection, where that one infection was sufficiently dangerous, it would indeed be worth it. Better than chancing the infection on a naïve immune system and hoping to come out the other side with a similarly infection-specific immune effect (c.f. annual flu waves) but without the QC and care given to the vector.) ((See, I knew it'd spark response, didn't intend to say much. Maybe I should just stay out of this until it blows over.)) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.79|172.70.85.79]] 23:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
::Of course it is about the vaccination - this supports Randall's earlier statements for being pro vaccine, that you should get the immunity from vaccination and not from infection! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
::::That's wrong, of course. Natural immunity is better. [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 16:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{Actual citation needed}} - And you have a habit of top-posting/putting things chronologically ahead of other comments, so I added an indent layer to make it clear. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.245|172.70.91.245]] 17:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Hmmm, no. It's about COVID (and that by inference). It doesn't mention the vaccine. The conversation ''might'' have been about the vaccine, but the comic (and its discussion of what it is sensible to do, or not) is vaccine free. It's "anti-infection", but not directly "pro-vaccine". (He, I and you ''are'' all sensibly pro-vaccine, I think. The comic itself is only vocal on that subject by omission and a chain of logic that will never occur to those stuck at the original fallacy.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.73|172.70.85.73]] 13:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

People who know a lot about the immune system could also be referring to people who are aware of possibilities like the varicella zoster virus which causes chickenpox, but stays dormant in your body after you recover and can come back later as shingles. This is less likely to happen if you get the vaccine to prevent chickenpox in the first place. --[[User:Norgaladir|Norgaladir]] ([[User talk:Norgaladir|talk]]) 00:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

A vaccination doesn't necessarily give you immunity, e.g. with the Covid or influenca vaccines, so you still can get infected. But being vaccinated reduces the risk of suffering complications like death that can ruin your and other peoples' life.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.229|162.158.94.229]] 07:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:...''significantly'' reduces the risk, in fact. It likely also (though it's a harder thing to establish) reduces the catch-and-transmit rate, thus yet another thing to do to help others, even those you'll never meet directly, who are unable or (ugh!) unwilling to think this far ahead. Unmitigated (and, especially, sought-after) 'natural' infection as represented in the comic just helps spread the thing further and faster and does a gross disservice to onward contacts, contacts-of-contacts, etc, etc. Excuse my preaching to the choir here, but it needs to be said. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.73|172.70.85.73]] 13:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
::You're not preaching to the choir exclusively, plenty of lurkers (like me) are reading along. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.143|108.162.241.143]] 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

While trying to update the explanation for 'neutrality of tone' and address some infectious disease history, I came across this [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7120728/#!po=44.6721|Highly Infectious Diseases in Critical Care] article
from the NIH published January 3 of 2020 which includes a comparison of smallpox, measles, SARS-1, and MERS-cov illustrating how significantly vaccination has reduced global infections. Check out the graph of measles from 1980. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.227|172.70.110.227]] 13:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

My hero is the person who added the citation needed to "Diseases are bad", as well as those who realize that vaccination is largely a form of infection on purpose (within one of the following five options: infection by the disease itself, infection by a weakened disease, infection by a killed and inactive version of the disease, infection by a related less dangerous disease that shares some characteristics with the original disease, infection by a laboratory created RNA strands that mimic the disease being attacked). Therefore, catching the disease on purpose, is a form of vaccination. Israel did a study on infection by the disease itself and found 6.7 times stronger immune response than other forms of COVID-19 vaccination. [https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital] [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:This should indicate that a better (at preparing your immune system to resist future infection) vaccine (process) may be possible. Without saying that current vaccines are ineffective. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.97|108.162.241.97]] 17:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:I like how you make sure to use the "laboratory created" modifier for the RNA vaccine, but not the other types. As if they all grew on trees or something. Here's a hint: all vaccines were created in a lab, though many were created more directly by modifying an existing virus, in that lab. [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 21:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I would like to add that the comic criticizes only a part of ''anti-vaxxers'' population that show the circular logic presented. There are other parts, e.g. those who are not quite sure if the cost/benefit (or rather risk/risk) calculus is right for the rapidly developed and hastily officially approved (in comparison to long-established vaccines against other diseases) and/or novel (mRNA) vaccine products, fearing long-time side effects of the vaccine. On the other hand, long-term effects of the disease itself are also not known yet, even if some middle-term ones are known or being investigated already. There are still other parts like those who oppose governmental obligations or pressure to vaccinate against covid and related restrictions, and take the refusal as a personal freedom stance. There may be others. -- [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.219|198.41.242.219]] 15:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This very much feels like a straw man. I get that it's a webcomic, but can we talk about this? The description says that natural immunity is "short lived" (as in, how short-lived, and how much compared to vaccination?) but meanwhile I hear like one in five COVID hospitalizations were vaccinated patients. Are there studies on reinfection with COVID in vaccinated vs non-vaccinated patients? It seems to me from the latest comics that Randall is frustrated. I think everyone is frustrated. Citation needed, haha. But I get tired of reading "haha the other side is dumb" from both sides of every damn issue these days, and the bigger the impact an issue has, the more furious the mudslinging. One could, for example, make the same "circular argument" jab at trusting the FDA in this example, or in a more agnostic case, the value of a college degree or a certification: Ex. "we're qualified to make decisions about what's right or smart for the populace because we're a bunch of people who say so, and we have a pretty looking seal to prove it, and also please keep giving us a lot of money." I mean, for those of us who have been to college, haven't we all churned our way through that just to get into the workforce and discover that it's completely different than what we actually needed to know? Would we call people "anti-uni's" and laugh at their incompetence for questioning the system? Even at the unlikely minimum of "anti-vaxxers (or x-person who disagrees with me) are 100% dumb and wrong and that's a fact", isn't the discourse important? I understand that the opposite extreme is "I'd rather let my child die of Polio than trust another human being", but isn't that just another straw man? When are we going to stop polarizing? Thoughts?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.147|108.162.237.147]] 16:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:It might be Randall is (intentionally or accidentally) touching on your point by making this comic's thesis ambiguous. People who aren't thinking deeply about the topic on both sides will initially think it confirms their worldview, until they see more discussion on the matter. So the comic's ambiguity might prompt more discussion by and between both sides. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.143|108.162.241.143]] 17:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
:Re: "I hear like one in five COVID hospitalizations were vaccinated patients." ....if less than one in five people are vaccinated, this is a problem. Either it means there is a problem with the vaccine (unlikely) or that the vaccinated are putting themselves more at risk thinking they are more 'virusproof' than they are. If more (and hopefully significantly more) than 20% of the populace are vaccinated then this is actually a positive sign for the whole issue - even if there's still social hubris underestimating the precautions they still may need to take.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.73|162.158.159.73]] 17:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
::At least in the US, significantly more than 1 in 5 people are vaccinated. It's a little over 3 in 5 fully vaccinated. But I would suggest that even that isn't necessarily the statistic to look at - pretty sure covid is still more likely to be serious for older people and folks with preexisting conditions, all else being equal, and those populations have an even higher vaccination rate. 78% of folks 50-64 are fully vaccinated, and 84% 65+, per the CDC. So that makes the 1 in 5 represent *even less* risk.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.45|172.70.110.45]] 18:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

(Re: The "Why does my IP keep changing?" asked as an Edit-comment (see page history)... Because your gateway/pathway between yourself and the site goes through a limited and shared ''set'' of possible IPv4s. There's no guarantee you'll get the same IP (or even obvious range!) between edits, nor that your current IP won't be used by someone else in a few minutes. It's just a technical thing that greases the wheels of the Internet, even if it has funny repurcussions for some things like this.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.73|162.158.159.73]] 17:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

"However, what Cueball (and by extension Randall) fail to note is that bad or not, there are plenty of instances where someone has already recovered, and therefore already in possession of natural immunity." - Isn't that what the comic is about? I'm confused as to why this is on the explanation page? --[[User:Enchantedsleeper|enchantedsleeper]] ([[User talk:Enchantedsleeper|talk]]) 19:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I think people are overcomplicating this. A common anti-covax trope you sometimes see is that natural immunity is "better than" the immunity provided by a vaccine. But it is a total non sequitur The *only way* the vaccine could prevent you from acquiring the coveted "natural" immunity would be if it saved you from getting infected in the first place. If you never end up infected, then I guess you didn't need the natural immunity after all. If you do get infected, well now you have it. There is no sense rushing out to get infected on purpose, which is the equivalent of refusing a vaccine. Of course, people can have many other reasons for not vaccinating, but this particular "reason" truly makes no sense.

To add to the pile: if you get infected, you don't have to *worry* as much about future infections. It's over with (at least psychologically). Balloon popping is bad, but it's the anticipation that's the worst part for me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.122.13|162.158.122.13]] 00:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
:That depends on if it's a "you only catch this once" thing. That's not so certain. Probably{{fact}} you can't catch a particular greek-letter-version twice, but you've got a dozen other (and potentially more later) greek letters to maybe/maybe-not fend off in future, with some variants clearly being able to at least possibly get past the protection (viral or vaccinal) that come from others.
:And they also say Omicron is only half as lethal (or hospitalising) as Delta, but that may just be because many Omicron-catchers had already made themselves infectees of Delta/whatever so they 'only' get the half-unsure vulnerability of the partially-naive/partially-protecting Delta-trained immume system of those that survived the prior round.
:And once you have more than twice as many Omicron infections because "it's not as bad as the other one", that still gives you more deaths than the 'more fatal' prior version. If you're thinking you're doing the Cowpox/Chickenpox thing of ''deliberately'' 'pre-infecting' yourself then you're just giving it more people to ''try'' to kill, yourself and any collateral infectees and (even if your individual chances are better, for whatever reason) it results in worse total statistics than if you'd been sensible until everyone possible had at least been able to be given a non-disease lesson in at least a similar-looking thing.
:...Oh, I don't think half the questions about all this have been answered, and won't be tied down for a while yet, but some supposed answers are clearly wishful thinking and should be easy dismiss as quackery. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.79|172.70.85.79]] 01:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Soooooo what's unfinished about this? It's almost a month old and the "incomplete" tag doesn't say anything descriptive about what needs to be done. And it looks pretty complete to me... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.57|172.70.230.57]] 07:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
:Depends on what people need. Some might understand it all, others might take more informing. (Not that I'd know how or if I should put it in the Explanation body, but there's [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60050996 situations like this] that illustrate potential complications to the viewpoint this is tackling.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.73|172.70.85.73]] 17:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason to get jabbed with an experimental mRNA cocktail for a disease that almost certainly will not kill me...if it even affects me. How sure can you be of its efficacy when the experts didn't even know it would require multiple boosters when it was first available? The fact that almost all dissent toward "the narrative" is censored rather than argued makes me even more skeptical and determined. I'm sure we can all agree now that masks were almost completely worthless the whole time, right? But it's only now that we're able to even say that without fear of retribution. Anyway, this comic will NOT age well. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.163|108.162.221.163]] 20:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
:Let's say it won't harm you, if you catch it (not a sure thing, but, let's assume you know this to be true). But you catch it, and pass it on to someone else, and thus you have hastened someone else's death. But it does not affect you, so never mind.
:As for mRNA vaccines being experimental, well they've been studied in humans for over 20 years, based upon a decade or more of prior trials, and have been theraputically used (for other things) for the best part of a decade. The general mechanism is well known.
:But still, tailoring it to deal with the very real new threat (though of course you can shrug it off like a mild hangover, I hear) was done very thoroughly, all the usual safety tests were done with haste but not rushed or skipped (just compressing the "dead time" usually inevitable between stages, except when pausing to rule out silly things like death by car-accident cannot possibly be connected to the study an individual took part in, etc).
:This did mean that they did not have the fuller information on 'immunity decay' (or, of course, how new variants might sneak around the protections provided) but boosters were always imagined necessary ''eventually'' to remind the body to look out for a half-forgotten or only partially matching pathogen signature. In part, the problem was whether to get boosters to people at the recommended interval (different for different products, but a few weeks to a few months was already suggested as of the first widespread injections) or to prioritise supplies towards first-injections in the wider population not yet previously having been called to be jagged.
:And you seem to be arguing about the mRNA vaccines, but seem not to have said anything about having had one or other of the other varieties (which ones will depend upon your locale, but there's now a wide range of them in most countries), so either you aren't aware of them or you're equally skeptical but only think you have arguments on that one type that you consider the archetypal demon-seed.
:And, as for arguments being censored, I know that plain wrong 'information' has been discouraged, to prevent the viral spread of dangerous lies, but here's me countering your points, arguing (or informing, I would prefer, but YMMV) vs. your frankly old-hat narrative that I certainly don't think should be deleted, but am happy to present (what I think is) more of a truth than your viewpoint is.
:And, no, I don't think the reaction to the Pandemic was done correctly. Often those in power made huge errors, but it could have been worse. Especially if no-one had had vaccines to be given, mRNA or otherwise.
:Have a nice life, and remember that you're still at some (perhaps small) risk of illness or death, as are your loved ones and others in your community. You perhaps don't need to be scared of it, but be cautious. Especially if you aren't vaccinated. And even if you caught an earlier version (knowingly or otherwise) and were personally lucky. Hopefully you never get to know that you were the reason for someone's fate, in one or other bad way. But be lucky! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.71|162.158.159.71]] 22:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

:It's not ridiculous at all. Once you've been infected, you can't get infected again. That is good and desirable. Is Munroe stupid? [[User:Gatorized|Gatorized]] ([[User talk:Gatorized|talk]]) 16:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
::It is not at all clear (and facts actually say otherwise) that you can ''never'' get infected again. Variants complicate things. That said, it would be much better if you were never infected the first time, and the risk of that being your first and (terminally) last infection. Either by you being 'pre-warned' by a carefully non-damaging vaccination or by the person you ''would'' have been infected by having themselves been vaccinated so that even if the infection reached them (and even if the vaccination ''didn't fully'' protect them), it never gets to the stage of jumping onwards to you.
::Ideally, all of that, all reasonable means to make sure that you're not suddenly assaulted by a disease that your body has ''no idea'' how to deal with, before it's too late. There is some flexibility, in that, but ultimately it's counterproductive to do nothing at all (if not for you, then for others). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.245|172.70.91.245]] 17:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2922: Pub Trivia

2025-04-23T14:05:34Z

172.70.91.245: Duh... Thinko.

I expect that the BTS question is a reference to the traditional Korean system of counting a person's age in units of Sal which started at 1 and incremented on the first day of the year. Since this system was abandoned on official documents in 2023, but is still in use in some contexts, the question of whether every member of BTS had a "birthday" on the first day of the year is ambiguous. [[User:Philhower|Philhower]] ([[User talk:Philhower|talk]]) 14:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:This is marked as fiction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csSYfPaBaS4, but was it?

question 5, planets exist outside the solar system, adding to the ambiguity. [[User:Philhower|Philhower]] ([[User talk:Philhower|talk]]) 14:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:One of the requirements in the definition of a planet is that it orbits the Sun, so no there are no planets outside the Solar system. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 17:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

::{{w|NASA}} disagrees. [https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/ Exoplanet Archive] shows 5612 confirmed planets. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 20:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
::: The IAU is the body that defines such things - and they do say that planets have to orbit the Sun...things that orbit other stars are properly called "exo-planets". But still - do we include dwarf planets? Rogue planets? It's definitely a crazy-vague question. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.219|172.70.211.219]] 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Then the IAU is wrong. A planet is still a planet even if you don't call it one. Objective reality is separate from the words used to describe it. {{unsigned ip|172.70.82.105|00:35, 23 April 2025}}
:::: the IAU is one body that claims the authority to define such things, but their authority is not recognized by any of the things they are claiming the right to name. (Except for a very small part of earth, mostly made of humans) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.203|172.69.58.203]] 00:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
::::That seems ridiculous, "If it isn't one of ours it don't count"? That'd be like saying "They're only 'cars' if they use North American roads, in other countries using THEIR roads you have to call them exo-cars!". LOL! And every future/space-based fiction calls them planets, just makes more sense not to be so arbitrarily exclusionary. Ours isn't the only sun, we shouldn't pretend it has some aspect that makes it count more than others - outside of that it's the one with us. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
::::: Correction, the IAU definition explicitly states that it is only about planets within the solar system and has no comment about exoplanets one way or the other. Presumably, to leave some flexibility on all the weird edge cases that are bound to come up with exoplanets. https://www.iau.org/static/resolutions/Resolution_GA26-5-6.pdf [[Special:Contributions/172.68.195.213|172.68.195.213]] 07:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Gas giants should be excluded too - they're not planets - just wannabe stars.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.31|172.70.163.31]] 08:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

: I think the correct answer is 0: before the solar system formed there were no planets. So, originally, there would have been none. If exo-planets count, going back to the beginning of time gives the same answer: when the universe came into existence during the big bang there were no stars, let alone planets orbiting them. Even religion agrees: in the beginning God created the earth and the heavens, but the sun came later, so technically earth was not a planet since it didn't orbit anything.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.49|162.158.62.49]] 22:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

As for question 9, please see the note about the history of Austrailia's capitals at: [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_national_capitals#Oceania]]. and the page regarding countries with multiple capitals [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_multiple_capitals]] [[User:Philhower|Philhower]] ([[User talk:Philhower|talk]]) 14:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
: See Also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_capital_cities List of Australian capital cities] - As an Australian, I believe many would also consider the major city in their state/territory to be a capital city, although not the capital of Australia.

: The explanation misses the possibility that this is a Dad joke: where the capital city of Australia is 'Canberra,' as long as the respondent doesn't actually count either the letters in Canberra (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) or the population of Canberra (unknowable/ambiguous). [[User:Bilkie|Bilkie]] ([[User talk:Bilkie|talk]]) 14:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

About the alt text, London is certainly in Europe. The question itself is malformed because "Europe (or 'the EU')" is not self-consistent: there is a lot of European countries that are not part of the EU. [[User:RedGolpe|RedGolpe]] ([[User talk:RedGolpe|talk]]) 14:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:The "Greater London" answer is also tricksy, as the "ceremonial county" of GL {{w|London boroughs|may not include}} the additional area of the City Of London (though it does include the City Of Westminster, which is sometimes the trick answer to certain trick questions that a quizmaster might attempt to pull). The ''administrative'' Greater London is the ceremonial one ''plus'' CoL, however... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.19|172.70.162.19]] 15:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
::I would argue London is not in Europe because there is no clear definition for Europe as a geographic area, it really doesn't have an eastern border that is not arbitrary, so the only clearly defined thing Europe can refer to is the EU. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 17:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:::London, France is both in Europe and the EU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London,_France [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.49|172.70.163.49]] 18:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:::While the eastern border of Europe is not clearly defined I am not aware that there is any definition of (geographic) Europe that excludes the islands (and subsequently London) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.135|162.158.202.135]] 21:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
::::There's "mainland Europe", excluding islands. Or at least any of several possibly island archipeligos and/or island nationstates. e.g. Mont-Saint-Michel might not be (exluded, that is, due to being French and having a (tide-dependant) ground access), Jersey would be (British Crown Territory island), Malta probably (island state), Sicily would depend on your thinking (it being Italian, and much larger than the strait that makes it an island offshoot). Most of Scandinavia might be interestingly included (with Denmark) or excluded (with Iceland), according to context. Even Gibraltar might or might not be, depending upon upon the thinking (or lack of it) behind the use of the term. (But, fiddling around the edges aside, (the English) London is not in "mainland Europe" and hasn't been for maybe a full 10kY before it became "London" in any useful sense.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.49|172.70.163.49]] 23:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
::::: The phrase "continental Europe" is also used, and might be implied by a British person saying "I travelled around Europe last year". [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.54|172.69.195.54]] 15:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
::::: The (semi-)apocryphal headline "Fog In Channel, Continent Cut Off" is perhaps indicative of the {{w|Continental Europe#Great Britain and Ireland}} British collective mindset (of which I must therefore be a component, albeit not at that end of the spectrum). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.71|172.71.242.71]] 15:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
:::I'd say The European Council has at least as good (or bad, depending which way you look at it) a claim to be 'Europe' as the EU does, and London (through the UK) is in that (for now, anyway).[[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.55|172.71.242.55]] 09:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benxi Benxi Lake] is actually considered to be the smallest lake in the world. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.135.205|172.70.135.205]]
:{{cn}}[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.176|172.70.86.176]] 14:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:Many websites says Benxi lake is recognized by Guinness records, but guinnessworldrecords.com does not have such a record. Either they recognized smallest lakes previously but not anymore, or they never had such a record and we are witnessing citogenesis ([https://xkcd.com/978/]) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.210|172.71.154.210]] 17:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
::I've been getting the Guinness World Records book for 20 years. I just checked my 2004 edition, and there is no record for "smallest lake". Doesn't mean it wasn't left out due to space concerns, but I'm not checking all the books. [[User:NealCruco|NealCruco]] ([[User talk:NealCruco|talk]]) 04:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
:Kari Lake is considerably smaller than Benxi Lake, although she has children so may not be the smallest Lake[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.17|172.70.162.17]] 15:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I never realized how challenging it is to edit pages when they've just been posted. Makes me long for something like Google docs.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.43|172.68.3.43]] 14:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

People, who are born on 29th February don't have a birthday in years which are not leap years. However, 2024, when this comic was published is a leap year. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.95.9|162.158.95.9]] 14:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

"5. How many planets were there originally?" This could also refer even back to the start of the universe, when there were (likely) just 0 planets. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.101|162.158.86.101]] 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I anticiated a lot of Edit Conflicts, but not actually quite so many as to not to be able to resolve my edits with everyone else's. This is the bare-bones that I was putting in (until finding multiple attempts tried to be added consecutively...
{{cot}}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Question !! Problem !! Possible answer(s)
|-
| Which member of BTS has a birthday this year?
| Every living person has a birthday this year (being a leap-year, this includes those born on 29/Feb).
|
|-
| How many sides does a platonic solid have?
| There are five (or [[2781: The Six Platonic Solids|six]]) platonic solids, each with a different number of sides.
| 4, 6, 8, 12 or 20
|-
| What is the smallest lake in the world?
| The distinction between a small lake and a pond, pool or puddle (for example) is difficult to define.
|
|-
| Which Steven Spielberg movie features more shark attacks? Jaws (1875) or Lincoln (2012)
| Not a problem, as Lincoln has very few shark attacks.{{Citation needed}} The problem is that barely anyone will ''not'' be able to correctly answer this.
|
|-
| How many planets were there originally?
| Contextually vague. At what time and within what volume of space, and what is the scope of 'planet' defined here?
|
|-
| What NFL player has scored the most points outside of a game?
| Outside of (NFL) games, individuals may accumulate points in any number of ways (e.g. Scrabble)
|
|-
| The Wright brothers built the first airplane. Who built the last one?
| Until no further planes are built, individuals/teams/companies continue to build (to completion) ever more examples, changing the answer possibly moment to moment.
|
|-
| Is every even number greater than 2 the sum of two primes?
| This is a {{w|Goldbach's conjecture|currently unanswered question}}.
|
|-
| Not counting Canberra, what city is the capital of Australia?
| Canberra is ''the'' capital of Australia, a fairly well known 'obscure' fact. Each Australian territory also has their own state capital, so there is not one other ''single'' example.
|
|-
| Who played the drums?
| Lack of context. With which group? For which song? For which (re-)recording? At which event?
|
|-
| Where is London located? (a) The British Isles (b) Great Britain and Northern Ireland (c) The UK (d) Europe (or 'the EU') (e) Greater London
| Almost all of these are correct (though London is geographically in Europe but no longer in the EU).
|}

This is apparently deliberate (at least on behalf of the organisers), perhaps to upset or otherwise impede groups of overconfident quizzers who would otherwise dominate any genuinely good quiz.
{{cob}}
...make use of it however you wish, anybody who has the time not to keep chasing all the simultaneous edits. (The above is a bit behind 'perfection', and lacks many of the integrations, wikilinks and adjustments I had made. I backspaced out of the edit I had finally reached, before remembering to take a full copy into my paste-buffer!) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.115|172.70.90.115]] 14:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought the answer to #2 could be 1, because as 3D solids they only have one surface. I would guess the player with the most points outside of a game is the one who's played idlers (like Cookie Clicker) the longest — though I suppose those could be considered "inside of a game" as well. Also, I played the drums. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.254.143|172.70.254.143]] 15:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:The answer to #2 is '2 - the in-side and the out-side'.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.242|172.69.43.242]] 15:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Considering the platonic solids explanation lists all the correct answers, could someone include a list of all the members of BTS and their respective birthdays? Bing copilot suggests the following:

1. **Jin (Kim Seok-jin)**:
: - Birthday: **December 4, 1992**

2. **Suga (Min Yoon-gi)**:
: - Birthday: **March 9, 1993**

3. **J-Hope (Jung Hoseok)**:
: - Birthday: **February 18, 1994**

4. **RM (Kim Nam-joon)**:
: - Birthday: **September 12, 1994**

5. **Jimin (Park Ji-min)**:
: - Birthday: **October 13, 1995**

6. **V (Kim Tae-Hyung)**:
: - V's birthday is **December 30**, but the year is not mentioned in the provided information.

7. **Jungkook (Jeon Jungkook)**:
: - Jungkook's birthday is **September 1**, but the year is not mentioned in the provided information.
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.19|172.70.162.19]] 15:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

: I'm not opposed to adding BTS birthdays, but I think it should be done by someone more knowledgeable about the band than me. Birthdays can be a surprisingly nuanced subject.[[User:Comatoran|Comatoran]] ([[User talk:Comatoran|talk]]) 15:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:Wikipedia says {{w|V_(singer)|'95}} and {{w|Jungkook|'97}} respectively[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.37|172.70.162.37]] 16:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

London is both a City (London) and a City within a City (The City of London) and an Area (Greater London)
There are also many more places named London than the one that is the Capital of the UK .. Serbia, France, Canada (Which is larger and the one in the UK), 10 in the USA, and one on Kiribati 17:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:Are you saying London, Ontario, Canada is BIGGER than the more famous London, England??? That's a country capital! Is that seriously true? I'm Canadian, I don't know London, ON as being THAT big... [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[7User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
::It's very unlikely to be larger in population terms than the (common!) wider definition of the main UK London, as that would make it larger than any other city in Canada by a large margin. In terms of area, London ON is very likely to be larger than the City of London (which is surprisingly small). More widely, the definition of what actually is a "city" is more complex than it appears to be at first glance; administrative areas (what official statistics are collected for) are often quite different from where the bulk of people are. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.25|162.158.74.25]] 07:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Some wikipedia figures, for reference:
:::*{{w|London, Ontario}} = 168.76 sq mi, Population 422,324
:::*{{w|City of London}}, subset of Capital of UK = 1.12 sq mi, Population 8,618
:::*{{w|London}}, administrative/etc capital of UK = 606.96 sq mi, Population 8,799,800
:::*{{w|London, Belgrade}} = a 'neighbourhood' (<1 sq mi?), Population unknown
:::*{{w|London, France}} = 'a small agricultural village'
:::*...
:::*{{w|List of minor planets: 8001–9000#837|8837 London}} = 1.5 mi diameter (~28s q mi, ~14 cu mi?), Population... some of the {{w|Clangers}}?
:::I skipped a few of the others (e.g. the various US ones: cities, townships, communities)... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.230.46|162.158.230.46]] 18:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised there were no phishing-type questions (i.e. "what are the last four digits of your social security number", "what are the three numbers on the back of your debit card", etc).22:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The only correct answer(s) to "who played the drums" would be "the drummer", or "twelve drummers", but I would accept Phil Collins, Alex Van Halen, or Ringo Starr for half a point each [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.100|108.162.241.100]] 02:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
: "Who played the drums" is Keith Moon; in this cryptic clue, "Who" is the name of the band, and "played the drums" indicates the drummer; hence the answer is Keith Moon, the drummer of The Who. [[User:Sabik|Sabik]] ([[User talk:Sabik|talk]]) 04:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
:Clearly the correct answer is 'Animal'.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.176|172.71.178.176]] 08:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I asked my Mom these questions & she said the answer to #7 so flatly: ''Boeing ''
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 02:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

On the Capital of Australia: Melbourne hosted parliament before Canberra was built, and Jervis Bay was part of the ACT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jervis_Bay_Territory

Are there people outside of the USA that are surprised to learn that Washington D.C. is the capital of the USA, rather than New York, Los Angeles, Chicago etc. due to its relatively small population? ("only" ~670000 in 2024) [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 06:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I came here all prepared to say that the Title Text should have Ontario, Canada as a (likewise correct) answer, but I see somebody already put that into the table, LOL! I feel like the "More Reasonable" version of the planet question should NOT mention Pluto, it should be the question IMPLIED in the comic whose answer is 9 (such as "How many planets were originally in our Solar System", but without the ambiguity of "originally". Basically a question whose answer is 9, pushing people to include Pluto, while allowing people the mistake of saying the current answer of 8, but mentioning Pluto would ruin that/the question). [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

There could also be a person Named "London" who is located somewhere, perhaps in the same bar (or not) -- [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.71|172.70.46.71]] 12:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_%28name%29 [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.31|172.70.42.31]] 16:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought I knew the minimum size of a lake by definition, at least in the US, but I just found different authorities asserting 1, 10, and 20 acres as the distinction between a lake and a pond. Two non-metric distinctions are that a lake has an aphotic (dark) zone, or a lake is fed and drained by a river, but they don't help here. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.43.53|172.70.43.53]] 16:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

For the love of god can we stop saying that Pluto was "demoted" to a dwarf planet? It didn't have its category changed, it had its category defined (for the first time!). It was a founding member of a newly named category. And it's not like planets are better than dwarf planets, they're just different. (I'm going to die on this hill, ain't I?)
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.16|172.68.34.16]] 01:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, you probably are. When it happened, many people, including astronomers, considered it a downgrade. There's some prestige in being a planet -- the Sun and the planets are considered the most significant objects in the Solar System. The qualifier suggests that it's less important than the "real" planets, and was kicked out of the planet club for being deficient in some way. Maybe we need a campaign from dwarf humans to remind everyone that they're just smaller, but they have no less dignity. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
:I'll cheerfully die there with you. But I'll also point out while I'm doing so that if it's a 'dwarf ''planet''', then clearly it is still a planet. I mean, people would look at you funny if you tried to claim that a dwarf elephant wasn't an elephant. And perhaps more pertinently, a dwarf star is still a star. So the answer to 'how many planets are in our solar system?' is 'at least 16 that we know of - depends how far down you count. Unless you discount the gas giants, in which case you need to subtract four. Or maybe two. Wait - how many are we on now again?'[[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.157|172.71.178.157]] 11:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
:I'll happily agree with you, and I've often said the same as Mr./Ms 178.157 above me that "dwarf planet" still sounds like a type of planet to me. However, it WAS demoted. Officially, the Solar System is now 8 planets. Pluto is no longer an official member of the Solar System, despite not leaving or being destroyed. THAT'S the part that's bothersome, a statistic from our childhood - "The Solar System has 9 planets" - was changed, seemingly unnecessarily, since nothing ACTUALLY happened to Pluto. Why can't a Dwarf Planet count as a member? Why kick Pluto out? Colloquially, though not politically correct, Little People have been called dwarves, should they therefore not count as people? Are they too small to be "people"? They have a qualifier added to "people", just as Pluto has a qualifier added to "planet", after all. :) It doesn't seem difficult to bring this to somewhere where it's more clearly wrong. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

For the planet question there's also Theia, which is theorized to have been a planet prior to smashing into proto Earth and forming the moon and modern larger Earth. So there used to be at least nine planets by the current definition in our solar system.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.20|162.158.155.20]] 03:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

For question #8, it's not that mathematicians were idling around. A lot of partial results were made, see Wiki. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.33|172.71.160.33]] 08:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I was confused by this question at first. The answer is "no." It is disproved by example. 21+3=24 21 is not a prime. 24 is even. {{unsigned ip|162.158.154.65|19:38, 21 April 2024}}
:24 is the sum of many pairs of numbers. Amongst those pairs (as with any even number >2) may be one ore more pairs of primes (even 2, if you count 1 as a prime - though generally one doesn't). 24 is (just looking at the odd numbers >1) 21+3, 19+5 (both primes!), 17+7 (both primes), 15+9 (no), 13+11 (both primes) and then of course the reverses of these (if you count those). So 24 is the sum of two primes (three, or six, times). 4 is just the sum of 2+2, 6 is only 3+3, 8 is only 5+3... And every even number checked from there on up ''can'' be expressed as the sum of two primes (at least once). But is there ever a point at which there is an even number that is not?
:With 3, 5 and 7 being primes, then you can definitely say that if N is an even number that has (or even relies upon) a solution with 3, then N+2 and N+4 are, which would be answerable by the same sum but with 5 or 7 instead. Plus N+8 (3->11), N+10 (3>13). And maybe you can fill in the N+6 and N+8 by the ''other'' prime used being also a suitable twin prime that you can swap out for the P±2 partner. But only if it's the right prime of any given pair, and not all primes are twins, so there's a lot more to consider about whether any given advancement up the even-numnber ladder can be answered by a suitable pair of primes.
: e.g. 15440=7717+7723 (one possible solution). 15442 therefore needs +2 to that. But 7717 and 7723 ar adjacent primes that areen't two apart (so you can't just add two to 7717 and have 7723 + 7723) and the next adjacent primes are 7703 and 7727 (not two apart, and not obviously useful to go 7717->7703, either). So there must be another solution (theoretically, but also proven by having been checked). By doing ''quite a bit'' of to-and-fro (if that's how we're doing it), we can finally announce that 15442=7649+7793 (but I also found 7523+7919, 7541+7901, 7559+7883 and 7589+7853, before I stopped the search). So It works up to 15442.
:15444? Well, neither 7649 or 7793 have a +2 prime-partner. But 7589 is followed by 7591 (as a new partner to 7853). And 7559 is followed by 7561, so 7561+7883 would also be an answer. There will (probably) be many others.
:But will there ''always'' be many others? Or even just the one? I'm sure someone has been counting how many unique (bidirectional) solutions each number has, and probably there are some that ''only just'' get the requisite single pair of primes that sum to it. Could it ever not even manage that? Those actually familiar with the efforts to prove the conjecture would know, rather than a fool like me coming fresh to the problem. (Relatively, that is... I already knew about it, but I've never tried to wade into the actual theory until right now, and this random example I set up to 'explain' this, just now.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.175|172.71.242.175]] 21:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
:: It looks like it was a mistake on my part to infer that the question meant "exclusively the sum of two primes." Allen [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.237|162.158.62.237]] 15:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
::: Ah, I see. Well, ''no'' number is "''just'' the sum of two primes" (4=3+1, and 1 isn't prime; or 4+0, and neither of those are; all before considering negative, fractional or even complex/quaternian 'summations' (e.g. (2+3i)+(2-3i)=4), which primes definitely are not part of, regardless of how they together become '4'...), so "Is every even number greater than 2 the sum of two primes?" sort of has to imply only that there "are two primes which sum", rather than ever "the only numbers which sum will all be primes". Hyper-pedanticity (or deliberate linguistic trickery) aside, that's really not in question.
::: But nice to understand where you were coming from, at least. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.49|172.70.163.49]] 20:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
*About Q2: the "number of sides" may be "the average number of sides" of a Platonic solid, which is 10, despite having no Platonic decahedron
*About Q10: with a correct list of answers, it ''may'' be kept as-is with having to select the drummer(s).
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.38|162.158.78.38]] 10:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
:That assumes that the Platonic solids occur in equal numbers in the universe. In actuality, there are probably more of some than others, which would throw your average off. Alternatively, you could argue that none of any of them actually exist (by virtue of them being Platonic, and any example being an imperfect approximation), in which case the answer is either 'none' or 'unanswerable', since you can't average nothing.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.156|172.70.85.156]] 12:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The smallest lake in the world is Snowf Lake. {{unsigned ip|172.70.34.58|02:22, 23 April 2024}}

The title text reminds me of some old viral social media post where an alleged smart-a** teacher made a test question that was like "What is the opposite of 'old'? (a) new (b) young". (I don't remember if it was specifically mentioned, but the implication was that the question would then be graded completely arbitrarily.) [[User:Zowayix|Zowayix]] ([[User talk:Zowayix|talk]]) 21:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

== Smallest lake ==

IMHO there is a reasonable interpretation of the smallest lake question: what is the smallest officially named naturally occurring body of freshwater. [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 06:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
: Does this go so far as to include "...that has the word 'lake' in it"? (Or ’lac’, or other acceptably ''exact'' linguistic equivalent, perhaps?)
: There is the "How many lakes are there in the {{w|Lake District}}?" classic British quiz question. Possible answer: there are perhaps 21(ish) 'lake-like' water bodies, but only Bassenthwaite Lake is ''called'' a lake, the rest are 'water's, 'mere's, 'tarn's (maybe then "not-a-lake", like "lochens are not lochs") and a handful of reservoirs (maybe not a lake, for being not natural?). Thus to avoid trouble, and especially how far to go to down the "pond, pool and puddle" route, the only truly unambiguous answer, once you know the 'trick', is "one". (Noting that "Lake Windermere" is a common misnomer for the body of water that is really just "Windermere", the actual largest "English lake". It having perhaps been tautologically enhanced to distinguish from "Windermere, the town", the main settlement in the area that was actually called Birthwaite prior to the arrival of the railway station that took the 'lake' name and then just rolled with it for the benefit of the unwashed/washed visiting masses.)
: ...this being sort of summarised in the Explanation at one point, actually, but got considered surplus. But a "smallest lake in the Lake District" question of this kind now explicitly excludes all the arguments about whether that means Easedale Tarn (by most linear dimensions) or Hayeswater (volumetric), whether or not you subscribe to other physical classification exclusions or the "Lake Windermere" name. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.48|172.70.163.48]] 08:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

2835: Factorial Numbers

2025-04-07T15:29:46Z

172.70.91.245: Edited the well-meant addition to be more correct than its original statement. If still suitable to be said (but didn't want to delete it, with the OP not knowing where their limit was wrong and maybe would try again).

{{comic
| number = 2835
| date = September 29, 2023
| title = Factorial Numbers
| image = factorial_numbers_2x.png
| imagesize = 628x481px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = So what do we do when we get to base 10? Do we use A, B, C, etc? No: Numbers larger than about 3.6 million are simply illegal.
}}

==Explanation==
A {{w|factorial}} is a product of positive integers. For instance, four factorial, written '4!', means 4×3×2×1=24.

The "base" of a numbering system defines which numbers it uses as digits and what each place value in a number means. For example, in decimal numbers (base 10), the digits go from 0 to 9, and place values are ones, tens, hundreds, etc. So "137" means 1×100 + 3×10 + 7×1 = 137. Numbers can also be written in other bases, such as binary (base 2, using the digits 0 and 1 and place values of 1, 2, 4, 8...) or octal (base 8, using the digits 0-7 and place values of 1, 8, 64, and so on). Using different bases is uncommon, but is sometimes useful in computer science.

In the comic, [[Cueball]] proposes a {{w|factorial number system}}, where the base ''changes'' for each place value - the first digit can be 0 or 1, the next digit can be 0, 1, or 2, the third can be 0, 1, 2, or 3, and so on. Each place value is the factorial of the base. So the number 137 in base 10 could be written as 10221, meaning 1×5! + 0×4! + 2×3! + 2×2! + 1×1!. While this numbering system is technically usable and can express any number, it seems excessively complicated, and the only reason Cueball gives for using it is that he thinks large digits like 9 should only be used in vast numbers (9 would not be used unless the number was at least 9 digits long, or over 3.2 million in decimal). This is a silly reason for using a new numbering system,{{cn}} so the math department thinks this is a prank, and has security throw him out.

In the title text, someone points out that a factorial number system needs more and more digits for each place value. The tenth digit in a factorial number would be in base 11, which needs 11 possible digits, and 0-9 only provides 10. In bases higher than 10, you can use letters to represent higher digits. For example, hexadecimal (base 16) goes from 0 to 9, then from A to F. It would be reasonable to do the same thing for higher bases in factorial numbers. Instead, Cueball says that it's simply illegal to write numbers larger than about 3.6 million, the largest you can go without using a base greater than 10. This is an absurd limitation, as other positional numbering systems can go as high as you like, and possibly have room for. (Roman numerals, that use a non-positional system, are said to only go to MMMCMXCIX, or 3999 in decimal, but {{w|Roman numerals#Large numbers|there are already various ways}} to exceed this. Practically, the upper limit is still only that of space to write them and any inconvenience in doing so.)

The number at the top of Cueball's presentation, 353011, is 3×6! + 5×5! + 3×4! + 0×3! + 1×2! + 1×1! which gives the decimal value of 2835, the number of the comic.

Cueball's examples of numbers written in factored appear as sequences [https://oeis.org/A007623 A007623] in the OEIS.

==Transcript==

:[Cueball is standing in front of a large presentation poster. There are two uniformed officers (a Ponytail and a further Cueball, wearing badged hats) approaching Cueball.]
:[Poster:]

::[Title:]Variable-base Factoradic™ numbers

::[Diagram in the form of a slip of paper, left edge torn jagged to indicate indefinite continuation]
:::[Several stacked elements. Following the general pattern of having "Base" at the top a base-number below that, and a square below that holding a digit (less than the given base-number)]
:::[Rightmost stack:] Base 2 [square:] 1
:::[2nd rightmost stack:] Base 3 [square:] 1
:::[3rd rightmost stack:] Base 4 [square:] 0
:::[4th rightmost stack:] Base 5 [square:] 3
:::[5th rightmost stack:] Base 6 [square:] 5
:::[6th rightmost stack:] Base 7 [square:] 3
:::[Leftmost stack is cut across by the 'torn' edge of the diagram. Square seemingly contains a 0.]

::[Two column-pairs, with idential paired-headers, above (generally) a 'number', a linking dash and another 'number']
:::[Left headers for both:] Base 10
:::[Right headers for both:] Factoradic
:::[First column of number pairs:]
::::1 — 1
::::2 — 10
::::3 — 11
::::4 — 20
::::5 — 21
::::6 — 100
::::7 — 101
::::[Gap]
::::21 — 311
::::22 — 320
::::23 — 321
:::[Continuation in second column of number pairs:]
::::24 — 1,000
::::25 — 1,001
::::[Gap]
::::5,038 — 654,320
::::5,039 — 654,321
::::5,040 — 1,000,000
::::[Gap]
::::999,998 — 266,251,210
::::999,999 — 266,251,211
::::1,000,000 — 266,251,220
::::1,000,001 — 266,251,221

:Cueball: Small numbers like seven or nineteen shouldn't use big numerals like "7" or "9".
:Cueball: I mean, "9" is the biggest numeral we have! It should be reserved for '''''big''''' numbers.
:Cueball: Small numbers should be written with small numerals like "1" or "2".
:Cueball: That's why my variable-base system uses...Hey! No, listen!
:[Caption under the comic:] Factorial numbers are the number system that sounds most like a prank by someone who's about to be escorted out of the math department by security.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Characters with hats]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Self-reference]] 
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]] 
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]

3063: Planet Definitions

2025-03-20T20:52:27Z

172.70.91.245: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3063
| date = March 14, 2025
| title = Planet Definitions
| image = planet_definitions_2x.png
| imagesize = 653x1435px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Under the 'has cleared its orbital neighborhood' and 'fuses hydrogen into helium' definitions, thanks to human activities Earth technically no longer qualifies as a planet but DOES count as a star.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic addresses the {{w|IAU definition of planet|controversy of whether of Pluto is a planet}} and explores many definitions, most of them humorous and nonsensical, of what a planet could be.
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="margin:auto"
!colspan="2"|Definition !! # of planets !! Explanation
|-
! Traditionalist
| {{w|Pluto}} is a planet
| align=center | 9
| In modern times, there was {{w|IAU definition of planet#Background|no formal definition of a "planet"}} prior to 2006. However, it was generally accepted as a colloquialism that there were nine planets around the {{w|Sun}}, Pluto included. This view started primarily with Pluto's discovery in 1930, based upon that time's scientific consensus that there ought to be another planet to account for peculiarities in the the orbits of the other outer planets.
As more sophisticated methods of mapping the {{w|Solar System}} were developed, and {{w|Eris (dwarf planet)|Eris}} was discovered and found to be even more massive than Pluto (which may not have been as significant as the theories that led to its discovery suggested), it became clear to astronomers that a more standardized definition was needed.

In 2006 the {{w|International Astronomical Union}} (IAU) published their formal redefinition of a "planet" to require a planet to be gravitationally dominant within its orbit, clearing other objects that aren't moons. This disqualified Pluto and Eris, which are now considered "{{w|dwarf planets}}". This has been subject to pushback from nostalgic laypeople dissatisfied with Pluto being "demoted" or otherwise relegated, when schoolchildren and adults alike have 'known' that there are nine planets for the most part of the last century.

Ironically, some of the latest study of the outer Solar System includes the possibility of yet ''another'' {{w|Planet Nine}}, but only time will tell if such an object exists and whether it would cross the IAU's current threshold or even require the threshold itself to be reassessed once more.
|-
! Modern
| Pluto is not a planet
| align=center | 8
| When the IAU redefined what a planet is in 2006, Pluto no longer qualified as a planet since it wasn't able to clear its neighborhood around its orbit.
Using the modern, and recently official, definition of a planet, only eight celestial objects qualified: {{w|Mercury (planet)|Mercury}}, {{w|Venus (planet)|Venus}}, {{w|Earth (planet)|Earth}}, {{w|Mars (planet)|Mars}}, {{w|Jupiter (planet)|Jupiter}}, {{w|Saturn (planet)|Saturn}}, {{w|Uranus (planet)|Uranus}} and {{w|Neptune (planet)|Neptune}}.
|-
! Expansive
| Dwarf planets are planets
| align=center | 17+
| This category also includes nine other bodies that aren't dominant within their orbits, including the ones that are considered to have compacted into fully solid bodies {{w|Dwarf planet#Most likely dwarf planets|as defined by Grundy ''et al.''}}: {{w|Ceres (dwarf planet)|Ceres}}, Pluto, Eris, {{w|Makemake}}, {{w|Haumea}}, {{w|Gonggong (dwarf planet)|Gonggong}}, {{w|Quaoar}}, {{w|Orcus (dwarf planet)|Orcus}} and {{w|Sedna (dwarf planet)|Sedna}}.
The basis for this viewpoint is the possible alternative re-evaluation that the IAU could have adopted, in that all newly discovered things ''like'' Pluto (being considered a planet at the time) should therefore be considered a planet. Indeed, Ceres had been observed some time before Pluto and had been called a planet (or a "minor planet") within both scientific and public realms.
|-
! Ultratraditionalist
| Only the classical planets are planets
| align=center | 5
| The {{w|classical planets}} are objects found and considered by the Greek astronomers in classical antiquity to be considered planets. Their definition of "planet" considered visible objects that move across the sky relative to the fixed stars, the original word itself being translated as "wanderer".
There are seven classical planets, but this included the Sun and Moon. If one considers only the ones that also fall under either the IAU's definition of a planet (and so ''less'' traditional) or the convention before that, then there would be only five. Being mostly true to the spirit of the historic naming convention, this would be a conservative but 'valid' version of the criterion.

Notably, Earth itself is not considered a planet by these criteria as, from the perspective of anyone who might even consider such things, it is not wandering the heavens. Or even in the night skies at all, but always underfoot.
|-
! Condescending
| Only giant planets are planets; the rest are big {{w|asteroid}}s
| align=center | 4
| This definition may refer to the {{w|giant planets}}, planets much larger than the {{w|Earth}}. Only the four outer (IAU-defined) planets fall under this definition. Relegation of anything smaller, including our own planet, is an extreme attitude.
Incidentally, most of the initial [[:Category:Exoplanets|exoplanets]] discovered were, by practical necessity in their detection, also only of the "giant planet" kind.
|-
! Simplistic
| Anything gravitationally round is a planet
| align=center | 37+
| The Wikipedia {{w|list of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System}} has thirty-seven objects. It includes the Sun, eight planets, nine dwarf planets, nineteen {{w|Natural satellite|moon}}s, but falls short of also highlighting all of the smallest visible objects (per Universalist, below).
This definition is essentially ''part'' of the actual current definition of a planet, leaving out the main factor that disqualifies Pluto, orbital dominance.
|-
! Grounded
| Only objects a spaceship has landed on are planets
| align=center | 10
| This list includes objects in the Solar System that a spacecraft has {{w|List of landings on extraterrestrial bodies|performed a soft landing on}}. The list includes {{w|Venus}}, Earth, {{w|Mars}}, the Moon, {{w|Titan (moon)|Titan}}, the comet {{w|Churyumov-Gerasimenko}} plus the asteroids {{w|433 Eros|Eros}}, {{w|25143 Itokawa|Itokawa}}, {{w|162173 Ryugu|Ryugu}} and {{w|101955 Bennu|Bennu}}.
The justification for this seems to be that we must 'touch' the object before we consider it as worthy of being classified as more than a mere blob (or dot) in space.

It could be argued that Jupiter and Saturn also count, due to the {{w|Galileo (spacecraft)|Galileo}} and {{w|Cassini–Huygens|Cassini}} spacecraft respectively, which plunged into the atmospheres of those planets.
|-
! Regolithic
| Anything covered in dirt and ice and stuff is a planet
| align=center | Infinite
| This list excludes the {{w|gas giant}}s and {{w|ice giant}}s. The list would likely include dwarf planets, asteroids, moons and the comets and {{w|Oort cloud#Structure and composition|trillions of other objects}} in the {{w|Oort cloud}}.
This is effectively the opposite of the "condescending" definition: every object in the Solar System except the Sun is included in one definition or the other.
This is also an extension on the "Grounded" classification. In this case we ''could'' meaningfully touch the object, with predominantly atmospheric bodies being not considered so.
|-
! Lunar
| You can't be a planet if you don't have a moon
| align=center | 12+
| Only some objects in the solar system have known moons orbiting them. The value given may be {{w|List of natural satellites|the number of planets and dwarf planets}} that have moons, excluding {{w|Haumea}} for not {{w|hydrostatic equilibrium|being spherical}} despite having moons.
Adopting this definition would suggest that a planetary body is not worthy of the name if it doesn't demonstrably dominate its orbit by having at least one satellite of its own.

If this statement were "You can't be a planet if you don't have a Moon", ''only'' the Earth would qualify.
|-
! Solipsistic
| Earth is the only planet
| align=center | 1
| {{w|Solipsism}} is the idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. Randall extrapolated this idea to mean that only one's own planet that they are standing on is sure to exist.
This relies on a more philosophical and/or semiotic assessment than any scientific one.
|-
! Judgemental
| Only the prettiest ones are planets
| align=center | 6
| This list is likely formulated from Randall's own perception of the prettiest planets in the Solar System. Seven objects are highlighted: Earth, Jupiter, one of Jupiter's moons (likely {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}}, based on [[1547: Solar System Questions]]), Saturn, one of Saturn's moons (possibly Iapetus or Phoebe), {{w|Triton (moon)|Triton}} and Pluto.
The subjectivity of this version of the definition makes it unlikely that a consensus of this form could be established.
|-
! Empiricist
| Only worlds that I, author of this table, have personally seen are planets
| align=center | 12
| This list may refer to the celestial objects in the Solar System that have been visible at night for the author, probably going so far as using an optical telescope (which could be a hobbyist one, perhaps Randall's own, or from time granted on a major institutional installation) but not any more indirect method that uses a camera/screen or historic images of any kind. Apparently Randall has seen Uranus, which technically [https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/skills/how-see-uranus-in-night-sky ''is'' visible to the naked eye] under the very best viewing conditions, but these conditions are rare and it requires knowing exactly where to look. Jupiter's {{w|Galilean moons|four largest moons}} are [https://web.archive.org/web/20201112024151/http://denisdutton.com/jupiter_moons.htm technically visible to the naked eye] but hard to distinguish due to Jupiter's brightness, while Neptune is considered too faint to see even if you know where to look. It appears that Randall has never used a telescope to see Neptune.
As a different form of subjectivity, the value of this grouping's criteria is questionable, but not uncommon in other 'softer' sciences.
|-
! Marine biologist
| Only objects with oceans are planets
| align=center | 6+
| This list includes Earth, {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}}, {{w|Ganymede (moon)|Ganymede}}, {{w|Callisto (moon)|Callisto}}, Titan and {{w|Enceladus}}. These have had the presence of significant liquid identified from measurements of their magnetic/electric fields, but see the "Maritime" entry.
There is a resemblance, here, to a loose understanding of what a "world" is, i.e., one that possesses various distinct 'terrains' beyond mere dry (and possibly considered featureless) rock. A marine biologist would, of course consider a marine (if not pelagic or bathyspheric) environment to be an essential element of any world.
|-
! Maritime
| Only objects with ''surface'' oceans are planets
| align=center | 2
| In the comic, only Earth and Titan are highlighted. Earth is the only body known in the solar system to have liquid water on the surface significant enough to be called an ocean. Titan's cold and dense atmosphere notably maintains surface 'seas' of methane and nitrogen, while other moons (given as additional in the prior item) seem to have their liquid water beneath either whole-surface ice caps or otherwise deep under the surface.
From the narrower point of view of a sailor, for example, there is no benefit in considering water hidden away far beneath the surface, and it might as well not be there. In contrast, it's possible that a well-prepared mariner could sail the strange seas of Titan, as easily as (or easier than) {{w|Dragonfly (Titan space probe)|an aircraft}} might fly through {{what if|30|its skies}}.
|-
! Universalist
| They're all planets
| align=center | Infinite
| This list claims that all objects are planets, with all drawn items (also presumably all undrawn/undrawable items) being marked as such, including the Sun. Giving up on any thought of exclusivity, this unconventional view willingly inducts all objects into consideration.
|-
! Existentialist
| What if {{w|outer space|space}} ''itself'' is a planet???
| align=center | ''Duude''
| This list is different from the list above as it claims that all of space, rather than only the objects existing in space, are planets. The interjection ''Duude'' expresses one's amazement at this 'revelation' and replaces the number count— and is sometimes used to imply [https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=duuuude the speaker is high] on marijuana or other mind-altering drugs.
The strange stretch of imagination, as prompted by some narcotic or other, abandons all pretense at sensibly sorting everything into "planet" or "not planet", as not only is everything a planet, but so is the nothing ''between'' these titular planets. However, the more serious subject of {{w|black hole cosmology}} holds the view that the observable universe is the interior of a black hole.
|-
! Spiteful
| ''Only'' Pluto is a planet
| align=center | 1
| This list is a malicious play on the demotion of Pluto by demoting all other planets except Pluto instead, leaving Pluto as the only planet in the solar system. Because after all, what did Pluto do to deserve this? It's a planet, dammit! Let's remove the other eight and see how you like it!
This is the taxonomic equivalent of refusing to play and taking your ball home to spite those who you think don't deserve to enjoy themselves.
|-
! {{w|Star}} (title text)
| Earth is a star
| align=center | 2 stars
| In May 1934, Mark Oliphant, Paul Harteck and Ernest Rutherford at the Cavendish Laboratory published an intentional deuterium fusion experiment and made the discovery of both tritium and helium-3. This is widely considered the first experimental demonstration of fusion. Randall considers that this and subsequent human-induced fusion makes Earth fall into the category of a star, and hence not a planet. Also, the IAU definition of a planet requires that the planet has cleared its "orbital neighborhood" of other objects — objects must either be captured as moons or have their orbits disrupted such that they are flung away.
Under this definition, one could humorously argue that recent human activities, launching into space ''new'' non-orbiting objects like the James Webb Space Telescope, technically disqualify Earth from being a planet, as the orbital neighborhood is no longer completely clear. By changing not only the definition, but the term being defined, this drifts yet further from any consensus view on the original question and into a typical punchline absurdity.
|}
The paper "[https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.15285 Moons are planets: Scientific usefulness versus cultural teleology in the taxonomy of planetary science]" reviews the historical (and astrological) history of what is considered to be a planet within the folk taxonomy, lambasts the IAU definition as "rushed" before sorting out vital issues, recognises the history of science recognising moons as planets and suggests a definition of planets of any orbital state based on their unique complexity between a pile of rubble and an undifferentiated orb of fusing hydrogen and helium.

The 2006 redefinition of Pluto as a dwarf planet is a common theme on xkcd, occurring also in [[473: Still Raw]], [[482: Height]], [[1020: Orion Nebula]], [[1093: Forget]], [[1458: Small Moon]], [[1551: Pluto]] and [[1555: Exoplanet Names 2]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[A table with 3 columns, and 17 rows below the the header row, labelled "Definition", "# of planets" and "Solar system".]
:[In each row, the first column has a single word, in bold, then a descriptive sentence. The second column has a digit or other 'value'. The third column is a not-to-scale drawing of the Solar system, featuring the Sun, various 'planetary' bodies and an apparently selective sample of moons and asteroids, as follows: The Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth with the Moon, Mars with its two moons (Phobos and Deimos), a small selection of some asteroid belt bodies (Ceres in the midst of other, smaller, examples), Jupiter and four of its moons (likely the Galilean moons: Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto), a ringed Saturn and usually one of its moons (probably Titan) or two (possibly Enceladus or Iapetus, as required), Uranus and four or five of its moons (likely to be Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania and Oberon, but one of these (shown upon the face of Uranus) only appears in some iterations of the base image), Neptune and one of its moons (probably Triton), Pluto and one of its moons (Charon), four more plutoid or Kuiper Belt objects (too little context to identify, but possibly Haumea, Makemake, Eris, and maybe Sedna in distance order), the first two of them with distinct moons indicated (entirely dependent upon which main objects they are).]
:[Each row's illustrated solar system has individual combinations of green highlights applied to the otherwise repeated diagram.]
:[Row 1: Definition:] Traditionalist: Pluto is a planet [Number:] 9 [Highlighted: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto]
:[Row 2: Definition:] Modern: Pluto is not a planet [Number:] 8 [Highlighted: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune]
:[Row 3: Definition:] Expansive: Dwarf planets are planets [Number:] 17+ [Highlighted: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres (in Asteroid Belt), Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and the further main bodies]
:[Row 4: Definition:] Ultratraditionalist: Only the classical planets are planets [Number:] 5 [Highlighted: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn]
:[Row 5: Definition:] Condescending: Only giant planets are planets; the rest are big asteroids. [Number:] 4 [Highlighted: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune]
:[Row 6: Definition:] Simplistic: Anything gravitationally round is a planet [Number:] 37+ [Highlighted: The Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, The Moon, Mars, Ceres (without other asteroids), Jupiter + moons, Saturn with Titan, Uranus and its moons, Neptune with its moon, Pluto and the four further dwarf planets, your mom]
:[Row 7: Definition:] Grounded: Only objects a spaceship has landed on are planets [Number:] 10 [Highlighted: Venus, Earth, The Moon, Mars, five (non-Cererian) asteroids and Titan]
:[Row 8: Definition:] Regolithic: Anything covered in dirt and ice and stuff is a planet [Number:] [infinity symbol] [Highlighted: Mercury, Venus, Earth, The Moon, Mars, Ceres with all other asteroids depicted in the Asteroid Belt, the moons of Jupiter, the sole moon! of Saturn, the moons of Uranus, the moon of Neptune, Pluto with Charon, and all remaining dwarf planets with their moons]
:[Row 9: Definition:] Lunar: You can't be a planet if you don't have a moon [Number:] 12+ [Highlighted: Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and three of the other dwarf planets in the Kuiper belt, including one with no obviously drawn moon]
:[Row 10: Definition:] Solipsistic: Earth is the only planet [Number:] 1 [Highlighted: The Earth]
:[Row 11: Definition:] Judgemental: Only the prettiest ones are planets [Number:] 6 [Highlighted: The Earth, Jupiter with one of its moons (not identified), Saturn, one of ''two'' Saturnian moons in this image and Pluto]
:[Row 12: Definition:] Empiricist: Only worlds that I, author of this table, have personally seen are planets [Number:] 12 [Highlighted: Mercury, Venus, The Earth, The Moon, Mars, Jupiter with its four moons, Saturn and Uranus]
:[Row 13: Definition:] Marine biologist: Only objects with oceans are planets [Number:] 6+ [Highlighted: The Earth, three Jovian moons, the two illustrated Saturnian moons]
:[Row 14: Definition:] Maritime: Only objects with [next word in italics] surface oceans are planets [Number:] 2 [Highlighted: The Earth and Titan]
:[Row 15: Definition:] Universalist: They're all planets [Number:] [infinity symbol] [Highlighted: All drawn objects, including The Sun and all other objects including all the moons/asteroids]
:[Row 16: Definition:] Existentialist: What if space [next word in italics] itself is a planet??? [Word:] ''Duude'' [Highlighted: The whole third column cell]
:[Row 17: Definition:] Spiteful: [next word in italics] Only Pluto is a planet [Number:] 1 [Highlighted: Pluto]

==Trivia==
*In the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/archive/6/66/20250314195557%21planet_definitions_2x.png original version of the comic], there were two errors that would later be fixed. The "Traditionalist" definition highlighted Neptune's satellite {{w|Triton (moon)|Triton}} instead of Pluto. The images of the Solar System for the "Traditionalist" and "Modern" definitions were swapped, resulting in Pluto being incorrectly highlighted in "Modern" and omitted in "Traditionalist".

*The "Judgemental" definition has seven colored objects instead of the stated six. This mistake has not yet been fixed.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Comics edited after their publication]]

Talk:3059: Water Damage

2025-03-06T15:53:15Z

172.70.91.245:

I suppose that there'd be no way to make a 'no fault' claim on your policy. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.248|141.101.98.248]] 18:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
: Bravo![[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.15|172.70.163.15]] 09:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Will I have to buy a lithospheric humidifier if I live in a boat? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.190.58|172.71.190.58]] 18:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

So is this a series now? Should we make a tag? [[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 18:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

: Probably so. Maxwell's Demon was made a category with only three examples, so I don't see why subduction can't also be a category with 1194, 1388, 1829, 2616, 3021, 3059, and almost 2987. [[User:StapleFreeBatteries|StapleFreeBatteries]] ([[User talk:StapleFreeBatteries|talk]]) 09:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

um guys, you might wanna check the new what if video [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 19:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

What is going on with the templates? [[User:TomtheBuilder|TomtheBuilder]] ([[User talk:TomtheBuilder|talk]]) 19:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

He's on a real geology kick lately huh. Unfortunately zero of them are funny. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.238|162.158.154.238]] 19:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
:Are you kidding? He rocks! Igneously, sedimentarily ''and'' metamorphically! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.4|172.69.195.4]] 21:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
::Oh, you mean ingeniously, sentimentally, and metaphorically. Yes. [[User:DKMell|DKMell]] ([[User talk:DKMell|talk]]) 02:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Ponytail is likely wrong here. Water leads to partial melting of the mantle above the slab, not the crust itself. [[User:Rhesus|Rhesus]] ([[User talk:Rhesus|talk]]) 08:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

An insurance company could totally defraud millions of Home and business owners by selling too cheap earthquake and volcano insurance with really long lifetimes before installing lithospheric dehumidifiers to make those phenomenons extremely rare. Homeowners beware! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.103.36|162.158.103.36]] 13:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Could we make a category for house related things, with comics like this one and the fridge one and the life hacks series? genuine question I don't fully understand categories.--[[User:Calpurnia Tate|Calpurnia Tate]] ([[User talk:Calpurnia Tate|talk]]) 13:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
:It can be done (not by me, but I've probably seen well over half the comic-category categories created). If you think that it's useful, I would suggest:
:*Either here, below, or in the Community Portal pages, lay out your case.
:*It helps if you suggest a name (or several alternatives) to encompass what you think is "a subject". Could be ''really'' broad ("Houses"), but I think you're looking to something a lot tighter. (Not quite knowing what you have in mind, so far, I'll wait until I see your next step before seriously suggesting/critiquing the possible choice(s)...)
:*List the candidate comics. Obviously [[3059: Water Damage]], and very likely [[3037: Radon]], but "the fridge one" immediately reminds me of two different ones you could mean, for different reasons (possibly you'd want them both, and other 'fridge ones' I'm currently not counting!). My inkling is that ''some'' of the Life Hacks are relevent to your idea (e.g. [[1494: Insurance]], but maybe not for thst reason), though not others. And maybe checking the existing [[:Category:Tips]] (or similar) will add some (but not all) of that Cat to your list. ...in short demonstrate that "house related things" is a sane group (to which we can also attach a sand name).
:*There's several people here who I know will see the fleshed out idea and might well implement it (hopefully not before others have chance to provide feedback, and... dare I suggest it... I might pop back up with steering suggestiions!). Certainly more likely to do so when justified. You should ''not'' (though people do) just add <nowiki>[[Some Category Name]]</nowiki> to the bottom of pages, seemingly at random, and hope someone will un-Redlink this Cat for you after the fact (it's harder to check what you're thinking of including).
:*As and when it ''is'' set up, the resulting Cat-listing page can be freely nicified, maybe made a member of a some super-Cat, other categories made members of ''it'' and any further comics that you (and others) had accidentally not noted as equivalent can be added so easily. But we need to know where to start from. Which is up to you. (Or, having posited the possibility, someone else may jump in with a convincing grouping ...no guarantee it'll match what you think, though.)
:Not the only way to procede (nor necessarily the most thorough), but a way which covers most of the bases. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.245|172.70.91.245]] 15:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

2157: Diploma Legal Notes

2025-03-04T20:55:40Z

172.70.91.245: /* Explanation */ Grammar and other minor tweaks

{{comic
| number = 2157
| date = May 31, 2019
| title = Diploma Legal Notes
| image = diploma_legal_notes.png
| titletext = If you're planning to challenge the royal family, you should probably wait 6-8 weeks, since a number of the younger ones have diplomas and Kate was actually on the varsity lightsaber team at St Andrews.
}}

==Explanation==
A class of 2019 graduate, presumably for some college or university, is given some rather unusual privileges for graduating.

A common line in degree granting ceremonies is "the degree of X is conferred with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto." This dates from the Roman Empire and continued through the rise of the university as an institution in medieval times. In the Roman era, the rights and privileges accorded to physicians and scholars included exemption from certain civic duties and military services, immunity from certain levies and from being summoned to court unduly, and even granting a state salary. In the medieval era, rights generally mirrored those of ecclesiastical figures and included immunity from civil law (instead scholars were subject to canon, or church law), as well as safe conduct on their travels between jurisdictions.

While true that some degrees do grant professional privileges today, generally additional accreditation beyond the degree is required (passing the bar, medical certification, etc.) to gain anything most people would consider a privilege or right or incur any obligation. (The obligation to pay your student loans back exists regardless of completing your degree).

; You may now legally perform marriages and arrest people.
: Depending on the jurisdiction, these may or may not be privileges that one already has by virtue of being in a particular jurisdiction or being part of a particular culture.
: In some cultures, a couple might be recognized as married if they meet certain conditions (as opposed to being legally recognized by a religious or civil authority), such as being recognized by the community or after the {{w|Inuit women#Family structure and marriage|birth of their first child}}. Because states often provide benefits (tax reductions, social services, etc) for being married, they often require that, in order to receive the benefits, that a marriage have a registered person recognize the marriage, which is likely the privilege that this graduating class' diploma is supposedly granting.
: In common law jurisdictions, {{w|Citizen's arrest|citizen's arrest}} is legal without a warrant in some situations, although in many cases, it is better to let a police officer arrest criminals due to potential legal and safety issues that might arise. The privilege granted by graduating might grant or extend this privilege, depending on where the graduating class is located.

; If you have your diploma with you, you can use grocery store express lanes with any number of items.
: It has become common for a small number of checkout lanes of a larger store to be explicitly reserved as "express" lanes for the use of those with, for example, fewer than 10 items. This lets someone with a few items (handheld, in a basket, or possibly in a low-capacity cart) who will pass through quickly avoid being held up by people purchasing larger numbers of items who will take longer.
: In some cases, shoppers may try to argue the true meaning of "fewer than N items" in their favor, for example by arguing that "3 for the price of 2" promotions should only count as two items. The prevailing interpretation of "express" may be driven by the opinion of the surrounding shoppers who are also queuing for an express checkout lane and who may express displeasure at the taking of such liberties.
: Whether or not it is genuinely more beneficial to have the privilege of using the express lane with any number of items is [http://theintrepid.blogspot.com/2009/09/choosing-fastest-checkout-counter.html arguable] due to various complex factors, but the new holder of the diploma (who is, ironically, now possibly capable of defining the number of items more rigorously depending upon the academic subject just mastered) need not concern themselves with counting the number of items in their basket or ever needing to wait behind slow shoppers ever again (provided they always carry their diploma with them when they do their shopping).

; All graduates are entitled to delete one word of their choice from the Oxford English Dictionary.
: The {{w|Oxford English Dictionary}} (OED) is the principal historical dictionary of the English language, published by Oxford University Press. It is unclear what benefit deleting a word from the OED would provide, and doing so would prevent anyone else from looking up the word which would typically be seen as a disadvantage. As the OED is often used as an authority on which words are valid words in the English language (for example for word games such as {{w|Countdown (game show)|Countdown}}), perhaps the intention is that such "deleted" words are in fact removed from the English language itself. For example, {{w|Lake Superior State University}} has an annual tradition of publishing [https://www.lssu.edu/traditions/banishedwords/year/ a list of "banished words"] that they consider to be overused.
: A different interpretation is the right to delete literally one word from the text of the dictionary. While mostly useless, it could be used to alter some definitions, removing some details or even completely reversing the meaning by deleting "not".
: The OED [https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/explore/how-many-words-are-there-in-the-english-language/ contains around 228000 words]. Given that US universities and colleges alone are expected to award [https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372 around 1.9 million bachelor's degrees] each year, this policy could lead to a rapid collapse of the OED.

; The university will mail you your working lightsaber within 6–8 weeks.
: Doctoral degree recipients wear various forms of dress or other items. For example, in Finland a [https://www.jyu.fi/en/academic-events/degrees-ceremony/instructions/doctoral-hat-and-sword doctoral sword] is traditional. A {{w|lightsaber}} is a fictional weapon from the {{w|Star Wars}} universe which is used in a manner similar to a sword. Any lightsaber created in real life would likely be highly-regulated due to its extreme power (in Star Wars, lightsabers are capable of cutting or burning through most materials and is only stopped by few things such as another lightsaber). Building a lightsaber is an important part of becoming a Jedi Knight, but Apprentices must find and assemble the parts themselves as part of their training and education; the only lightsabers they are given by the Temple are low-powered training lightsabers. Hacksmith Industries has created a [https://www.hacksmith.com/projects/lightsabers lightsaber in real life].
: "6–8 weeks" is a [https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/19514/184432 meme made popular on Stack Overflow] meaning that the person making the estimate has no idea how long something is actually going to take or whether it's even going to happen at all.

; You can send mail without stamps.
: The {{w|Franking#Franking privilege|franking privilege}} allows sending mail without stamps and is often granted to legislators conducting "official business." A group of legislators elected at the same time may sometimes be referred to as the "class of ''year''" (such as [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/28/us/politics/congress-freshman-class.html "the congressional freshman class of 2019..."]), which may be seen as a parallel to a year of graduates from a university.

; You have earned the right to challenge the British royal family to {{w|trial by combat}}. If you defeat them all, the throne is yours.
: "Trial by combat" or "ritual combat" was a manner to settle disputes where two individuals would engage in a duel, with the winner being declared right. This type of ritual combat was depicted in the film ''{{w|Black Panther (film)|Black Panther}}'', with the winner of the combat declared the king of Wakanda. T'Challa, the Black Panther, was victorious in a fight against M'Baku, but was defeated by Erik Killmonger.
: The {{w|British royal family}} consists of the descendants and relatives of the current King, Charles III. However, {{w|Succession to the British throne|the line of succession}} to the throne consists of potentially over 4,000 individuals; it is possible that a challenger would have to duel all of them, starting at the bottom of the line. The British royal family was also referenced in [[2003: Presidential Succession]].
: It's not stated who would choose weapons for trial by combat — "you", or members of British royal family; or if users even use identical weapons, or just bring whatever they have. In case of more atypical options (e.g. duel on modern assault rifles), it's likely that "you" wouldn't survive to the end of line of sucession.
: Lightsaber described above would help in that case — as in Star Wars, lightsaber duels between Force-users are rather common, to the point of multiple dueling lightsaber-fencing styles being made.
: Besides, there's the chance that, when "you" kill 3999 members of British Royal Family, another diplomed guy would swoop in and duel the last remaining royal — therefore, becoming the king instead of "you". At which point, "you" and ''millions'' of other diplomed people would all try to duel the new king — then, duel another new king — and that goes until either we run out of contestants with a single one remaining, or undisputed duel champion emerges and no one wants to fight him.

; You may now ignore "Do Not Pet" warnings on airport security dogs.
: Security dogs are typically used in airports for the purpose of identifying explosives, drugs, or other prohibited items by smell. Although these dogs often work in private areas of the airport, they may sometimes be seen in public areas.
:Since dogs, in most western societies, are primarily kept as pets, it's a common reaction to want to interact playfully with the animals. This is prohibited for security dogs for multiple reasons. Petting the dog can distract it and otherwise prevent it from carrying out its job. In some cases the dogs may be aggressive to unsolicited contact. Criminals might deliberately attempt to distract or even poison security dogs to prevent detection. As such, the dogs typically carry a warning to not pet them and someone who ignores the warning will likely be detained for questioning. However, according to this comic, the holder of the diploma is supposedly permitted to pet such dogs with no consequences, despite the warnings.

The title text builds on the items about lightsabers and the British royal family and advises that, because several of the younger royals also have diplomas, they have received their lightsaber already. Thus you should wait at least the 6–8 weeks until your lightsaber arrives to have a fair chance, given that the lightsaber is a very lethal weapon. Also some of them may even be proficient with the weapon. Special mention goes to {{w|Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge}}, aka Kate Middleton, who was supposedly on the {{w|Varsity team#Varsity in the United Kingdom|varsity}} lightsaber team at {{w|University of St Andrews|St Andrews}}.

==Transcript==
:[An official document with a title at the top between two images of graduation hats on either side:]

:<big>Congratulations, Class of 2019!</big>

:Your diploma grants you many new powers and privileges. These include:
:* You may now legally perform marriages and arrest people.
:* If you have your diploma with you, you can use grocery store express lanes with any number of items.
:* All graduates are entitled to delete one word of their choice from the Oxford English Dictionary.
:* The university will mail you your working lightsaber within 6-8 weeks.
:* You can send mail without stamps.
:* You have earned the right to challenge the British royal family to trial by combat. If you defeat them all, the throne is yours.
:* You may now ignore "Do Not Pet" warnings on airport security dogs.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Star Wars]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]] 
[[Category:Aviation]]

3046: Stromatolites

2025-02-05T17:20:40Z

172.70.91.245: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3046
| date = February 3, 2025
| title = Stromatolites
| image = stromatolites_2x.png
| imagesize = 581x505px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = If only my ancestors had been fortunate enough to marry into the branch of the bacteria family that could photosynthesize, like all my little green cousins here.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by THE MISSING LINK'S OSTRACIZED ANCESTOR - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic makes fun of claims to 'special' ancestry, such as some old royal family or similar, that may be made after doing research on a {{w|family tree}} site. These services allow the user to input the names and other information of family members and cross reference with various documents to trace lines of descent. Often, those who find a connection to a historically significant individual are quite excited about this, and may feel that it somehow makes them special. However, in reality, once you go back more than a few generations there will be many thousands of such connections, and once you get back more than a thousand years or so, anyone you could be related to will also be related to pretty much everybody else still alive in some way or other.

[[Beret Guy]] tells [[Cueball]] he has been on such a site and traced some of his family from "a few billion years back" who were related to {{w|stromatolites}}. These are layered accumulations of mineral "microbial mats" (Cueball calls them ''bacterial mats'') created by microorganisms, predominantly the oxygenic-photosynthetic {{w|Cyanobacteria|cyanobacteria}}. Some fossil stromatolites in Australia from 3.48 billion years ago contain the oldest undisputed evidence of life on Earth (though people have also claimed {{w|Earliest known life forms|other, older evidence}} for this record). Since this is some of the first life on Earth it is basically a given that all life that came after (not even just all humans) is related. Beret Guy only claims he is related to their {{w|Alphaproteobacteria|cousins}} and that it is from their cousin bacteria that he got his {{w|mitochondria}}. His aside that he also got his cell nuclei in this way is odd, as, according to the {{w|Cell_nucleus#Evolution|leading contemporary theory}}, the ancestral archaeon ("my archaean ancestors") themselves contributed the nucleus to the original eukaryotic cell. In this model, both the archaeon and the alpha-proteobacterium were endosymbionts in a third cell, which is not consistent with Beret Guy's claim that the mitochondrion began as an archaeon's endosymbiont. Perhaps all that clicking addled even Beret Guy's brain. Anyway, he is not claiming to be a direct descendant from [the cyanobacterial component of] stromatolites, which makes sense since they can photosynthesize, and as he mentions in the title text, he cannot!

Ancestry services typically do not allow the user to track their familial history prior to written records{{citation needed}}, but with his [[:Category:Strange powers of Beret Guy|strange powers]] it is no wonder that Beret Guy could make this work! (Some do provide genetic sequencing, which allows for more information to be acquired, but this isn't accurate enough to track individual people who lived before such technology existed on a wide scale.) He may also have needed to rely on these powers to do all the clicks needed to go back that far in the past. Even at a rate of 10 to 15 clicks per second it would still take thousands of years — maybe even more due to how fast cells can reproduce — to do enough clicks to work back this far from scratch. However, it may be that a large part of the tree had already been constructed by previous users, and all he had to do was find a relation already attached to this tree. This would further underline how un-special his newly discovered relationship is.

Cueball asks if he would like to contact his distant relatives, since there are still living stromatolites today (or at least something very similar to those from billions of years ago). But Beret Guy imagines they are busy so he will not bother them. When asked by Cueball what he would use his newfound knowledge for, he lies down on the hill they have climbed to bask in the sun. Because as he says, "Lying on a hill in the warm sun is an old family tradition." This is basically the only thing stromatolites can do, but they are doing it all the time and could thus be said to be busy with this. It seems, however, like Beret Guy is going to enjoy this tradition.

In the title text Beret Guy muses about how great it would have been if his distant relatives had married into the branch of the bacteria family that could photosynthesize... and then refers to the grass he is now lying on as "my little green cousins here". If this had happened he would either have been able to lie on the hill without eating since [https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2014/10/28 he would be able to photosynthesize] getting energy directly from the sun (instead of eating some of his small green cousins' closer relatives) - although that might not be enough to sustain him, as per ''[[what if? (blog)|what if?]]'' article ''{{what if|17|Green cow}}''. Or else he would actually have been a plant instead.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Beret Guy, seen from afar in silhouette, are walking up a grassy hill.]

:[They continue walking up the hill, reaching its grassy summit. Now with normal lighting. Beret Guy is a bit ahead of Cueball.]
:Beret Guy: I learned something today.
:Beret Guy: I went on one of those family tree sites and kept clicking back, and it turns out I'm related to stromatolites!

:[Closeup on Cueball. Beret Guy's reply comes off-panel from a starburst on the right edge of the panel.]
:Cueball: The bacterial mats?
:Beret Guy [off-panel]: Yeah! A few billion years back, on my mitochondria's side.

:[Cueball and Beret Guy standing on the top of the grassy hill facing each other. Beret Guy holding a hand out towards Cueball.]
:Beret Guy: My Archaean ancestors absorbed some bacteria that were cousins of stromatolites. That's how I got mitochondria.
:Beret Guy: Cell nuclei, too.

:[Cueball is standing behind Beret Guy who is now sitting down in the grass leaning back on one arm with the other arm resting on his bent knee.]
:Cueball: I think there are still living stromatolites. You could get in touch.
:Beret Guy: Nah, they're probably busy. I don't want to bother them.

:[Cueball is sitting behind Beret Guy who is now lying down, both again shown in silhouette from a far, revealing they are on the top of the grassy hill.]
:Cueball: So what ''are'' you going to do with this knowledge? Nothing?
:Beret Guy: Lying on a hill in the warm sun is an old family tradition.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Biology]]

User talk:FaviFake

2025-01-30T11:20:13Z

172.70.91.245: /* YouTube template */

<big><big><big><big>Hey there, feel free to '''[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:FaviFake&action=edit&section=new send me a message]''' :)</big></big>{{TOC}}</big></big>

== Objects table ==
Thanks for replying. The current table in the main text looks good, but still it is a ''description'' or just ''enumeration'' of game objects, not an ''explanation'' (or in some cases: partly an explanation). Supposing we keep the current structure, it is possible to add explanations for the planet names in the '''Explanation''' column. For example, first sentence of the second paragraph is a good ''explanation'' for the Uzumaki planet's name. On the other hand, Andal has only a ''description'' (what it looks like and what features are present on the surface) and no ''explanation'' (that it refers to Animorphs series of books). There's also a question where one should put explanations of items and messages. Some do not need an explanation ('You found a stick'), but most do: what they mean and what they refer to, both in xkcd context (such as when there's a comic about the thing) and in general context. I hope you understand the difference between ''description'' and ''explanation''. Maybe there's also some misunderstanding resulting from a language barrier; English is not my native language.

What is also missing in the table are many structures or objects found on the planets and, most importantly, dialogues or monologous of the characters, which contain many puns and references, and also hints for the player. There's simply no place for them in the current structure. Making more columns may be messsy. That's why I proposed making several tables covering different aspects.

Please take my remarks as proposals to improve the structure and not as a criticism or request for you to make everything right and fill every cell of the table. I think we need to create a clear structure for everyone else to fill in with details; but also to provide good examples to follow.

Technical remarks:
* In my opinion, the filename column is not needed, it does not appear anywhere while playing, it's in source code only. Better remove it to have more horizontal space for the rest. The names given to the planets by the editors of the explanation page shown in the Description column are fine.
* Coordinates are also not useful for a regular player, who does not use some Javascript addition/cheats, maybe remove it as well; textual directions in '''Explanation''' column are sufficient.

-- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 19:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
:> Thanks for replying. The current table in the main text looks good, but still it is a ''description'' or just ''enumeration'' of game objects, not an ''explanation'' (or in some cases: partly an explanation). Supposing we keep the current structure, it is possible to add explanations for the planet names in the '''Explanation''' column. For example, first sentence of the second paragraph is a good ''explanation'' for the Uzumaki planet's name. On the other hand, Andal has only a ''description'' (what it looks like and what features are present on the surface) and no ''explanation'' (that it refers to Animorphs series of books).
:Hey! Yeah, that's the state of the table ''right now'', and I 100% percent agree with everything you're saying here. All planets and items that need an explanation should be explained and not just described. I mostly just copied and pasted the "planet description/explanations" from the old list to the table: creating the table was way more painful than i thought. I was actually surprized to see that nobody explained what Andal referred to, but I don't know anything about it so more knowledgeable people will have to chip in on that

:>There's also a question where one should put explanations of items and messages. Some do not need an explanation ('You found a stick'), but most do: what they mean and what they refer to, both in xkcd context (such as when there's a comic about the thing) and in general context. I hope you understand the difference between ''description'' and ''explanation''.
:I do! And I wish other people could help here. I'm not sure if you've seen it, but this is the banner i put above the table:
----
'''ALL ITEM EXPLANATIONS NEED TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE OLD PLANET LIST TO THE NEW TABLE''' 
We are currently switching from a disorganized list (below, inside the green banner) to the new organized table, but the explanations for specific items are missing from the new table. Please help by copying the item explanations from the old list and adding them to the new table ''in this format:'' 
<code>The item message &ndash; <nowiki>''Where to find it &ndash; Explanation, such as references etc''</nowiki></code> 
Example: You found a cheese platter (Your tanks recharge faster) – ''Next to the cell tower – The cheese is a reference to [https://example.com 1234: Cheese]''
----
'''OTHER ISSUES:'''
* upgrades that end in "???" need to be replaced by the exact upgrade message shown to the user.
* the "Tiles (X, Y)" column for planet coordinates is empty

:As you can see, the explanations should be put right next to the items and messages. Unfortunately no one has started to add them to the table yet

:> Maybe there's also some misunderstanding resulting from a language barrier; English is not my native language.
:Your English is excellent :)

:> dialogues or monologous of the characters, which contain many puns and references, and also hints for the player. There's simply no place for them in the current structure. Making more columns may be messsy. That's why I proposed making several tables covering different aspects.
Almost all the dialogues are on the [[2765: Escape Speed/Transcript]] page, so I guess they should be added there. I don't know if they're already here, I haven't looked at it enough
:: The transcript is not the place for explanations. Puns and references shall be explained elsewhere. I continue working on the transcript but there's still quite a way to go. -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 5 May 2023

:> Please take my remarks as proposals to improve the structure and not as a criticism or request for you to make everything right and fill every cell of the table. I think we need to create a clear structure for everyone else to fill in with details; but also to provide good examples to follow.
:Yeah; i totally get everything you said. In my last reply I think I was a bit too rude for some reason, maybe it's because I just finished the table and was tired.

:>* In my opinion, the filename column is not needed, it does not appear anywhere while playing, it's in source code only. Better remove it to have more horizontal space for the rest. The names given to the planets by the editors of the explanation page shown in the Description column are fine.
:* Coordinates are also not useful for a regular player, who does not use some Javascript addition/cheats, maybe remove it as well; textual directions in '''Explanation''' column are sufficient.
I was heavily inspired by the table in the [[2712: Gravity]] explanation, which included these. I kind of agree that the filename could be removed, and the filenames could be added to the planet name or explanation, i didn't think about that. About the tiles, someone might use them someday, but if the column keeps remaining empty, i don't mind seeing it disappear

:I really liked your ideas, if you don't mind I'll copy and paste this discussion in the actual comic discussion page and see what others think --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 21:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

::Update: I found a way and added all the coordinates, and moved the planet filenames to the Planet Name column to make more space for the other columns :)

::: Hi, what about dividing planets and objects like in [[User:Malgond/Drafts/Escape_Speed|my experiment]]? There's plenty of horizontal space for explanations and the entries are quite compact vertically. I also think about color-coding the different Types of game objects. -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 5 May 2023

::::Hmm, I think it looks a little messy and maybe too complicated. Do any other comics have two different tables? Also, I'm personally not a fan of mixing items, landscapes, and people. I think most people reading the table are there to get an overview of the planets and what they contain. Do we really have to explain everything in such detail? [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 14:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::We do not have to follow other explanations too closely, we could use a new form if it seems clearer and better. The current form has no place neither for explaining items nor for dialogues/monologues. More columns could be problematic (specifically in today's world of high and narrow screens of smartphones). Should we explain everything? Well, it us up to collective "us". Personally, I would like someone explain a few puns/dialogues I do not understand.
:::::For now, there's only a handful of people still interested in somehow finishing the explanation for this huge comic. Maybe if we two can agree on some format we could put it in discussion page and ask for votes. (Discussion needs a cleanup, BTW). -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 22:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::Hey, I'm back. I see you're enhancing your example table, and iI was wondering, do you plan to move your edits to the actual article after you're done and use the test to see how the formatting looks? Isn't it easier to just add them to the main page directly? Just wondering. If you want I can help you port them over :)
:::::Keeping the contents of the table on your talk page and then porting them over afterwards could lead to a loss of information added after you started editing your user page [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 13:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::I'm back too. Yes, I intend to put it in the main article, but I am a bit shy to replace a lot of your work; I've asked for opinions in the talk page. Let's see how it sorts out. Maybe someone has a still better idea. -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 21:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::Oh. I think the structure of the current table in the article is better than the one you've been working on: for example, it's easier to sort for items, is more compact, and is just one. Why don't you just add a "transcript" column like the table on [[2712: Gravity]] to put what things and people say, and add the rest of the information on the respective columns? Personally, I think you're making it a little bit too complicated. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 15:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

== Haltones ==

"They're not **predominantly** gray, the two main colors are just white and black. Sometimes he uses the gray color just like when he uses any other color" ... It didn't say that they were predominantly grey(/'gray'), any more than it said that they'd be predominently black (as [[:Category:Comics with inverted brightness]], often, in preference to white). The point being that even the most "black and white" images aren't monochrome, but have degrees of grey at the boundaries, with smoothly antialiased boundaries between the full black of the line (or filled area) and the full white of the background (or inverted detail). You'll see this if you zoom in, with your favourite image editor. And very often in images with a default RGB colourspace, even if the effective pallette employed covers just greyscale values. But greys actually do feature a lot, too (often the first choice of non-black-and-white, for slight lessening of prominence, as opposed to 'red pen' ''increased'' visibility). So it's technically inaccurate to describe them as pretty much monochrome. But how to convey this in <...counts...> less than 157ish words? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.173|172.71.242.173]] 16:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
:The wiki page says
::::"xkcd comics are usually plain, predominantly black-and-white line drawings, but sometimes they make use of hues beyond the usual monochrome colors, even if it is just red-penned annotations.
:I think it's enough, since, even if grey is more used than other non-monochrome colors, I don't believe it's so important that it needs to be included as a "third" main color. If Randall uses many bright colors, that he will obviously also use simpler hues of grey when needed. What do you think? [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
:Aside from the antialising edging gradient, I just used the Random Page link and landed on [[1301: File Extensions|something with functional greys]], [[734: Outbreak|an unusual use of 'Post-It' yellow]], an unremarkably "just black pen" comic and then [[1788: Barge|more functional grey]]. I'd argue against "monochrome" as a description, as clearly there is more than just #000000 and #FFFFFF, often enough, in an actual fill-colour/broad-brush context. Even if that's #808080 or another no-hue shade. (I was expecting to land on a "grey pen" comic to assess, after enough clicks but, having seen what I got in the random first handful, I saw no need to go on.)
:And "monochrome" can be/often is coloured. Sepia photographs or "night vision" green displays are perfect examples of monochrome (with or without halftones/dithering/whatever). As is [[267: Choices: Part 4]] (other Choices comics may be considered "duotone", in different ways).
:Maybe "...are often drawn as black shapes on white, or occasionally white shapes on a dark background, but may feature at least one additional highlighting shade or an even fuller colour pallette." Does that sufficiently cover that whole breadth of use? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.154|172.70.86.154]] 19:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

== Childish slang. ==

Agree with you on the recent change that you (generic 'you', not ''you'' 'you'!) sound infantile, any which way, upon use of the words mentioned. Which is how it was still said before the revert in that version of edit. But with <code>"pretty gay" and "retarded" are infantile and offensive slang for "foolish" or "contemptible"</code>, you miss the point. Foolishness is just one distant contender for what "pretty gay" is often intended to mean (even if not actually being used for someone/something 'effeminate'). And "retarded" is more in the whole "thick, stupid, dumb" line of insult than "contemptible" (which is more "horrible, dislikable, repulsive"..?).
 Personally, I also thought it better with not actually defining insults (correctly or otherwise), as it adds power to them. I can call someone a "numpty" in jest, for example, and colloquially that might be understood as the low-level insult (if that) which it is intended to be. But if I start to bandy around its {{wiktionary|numpty#Scots|dictionary definition}} then it becomes more of a seriously accusatory description.
 Just my opinion. Not really understanding the latest revert when it had seemed to be improved (if anything) in the version you reverted away. Just putting it there. I know you're doing a lot of editing (good stuff!) just wondering if you considered this one carefully enough in your obvious zeal. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.89|172.71.182.89]] 16:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
:Addendum. Meant to say, if you decide to undo/reform your own revert (I won't do it, but on the offchance you see my point), I'd have not said "''commonly'' used". They're used in slang, but I don't think we can say how frequently they pop up. They're "used in slang" (and also not in slang, or at least not insulting slang, where "gay" has a long history of just meaning "happy", whilst "retarded" is often to do with decceleration/minimised acceleration of physical systems) but I'm not sure they're no more than minority words in the whole world of such language. They depict a subset of insult-givers (like the character in the comic, for whom it adds a certain additional characterisation) amongst all the many and varied insult-givers, and Randall surely chose such semi-bowlderised terms to not have to write any of all the far worse words he might also have done. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.31|172.71.94.31]] 16:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

== IP page to delete ==

I didn't see your thinking about why the Deletion category was not needed there. And, believe me as an IP myself, I've never known anything useful being said on an IP's User or User Talk page. With that example not breaking the pattern any. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.131|172.70.85.131]] 00:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
:I just don't think there's a reason to delete it, it's useful to have a previous talk page if the IP continues to edit and people want to communicate with them [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 10:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
::"The IP" is whichever one of 'us' happens to land on that particular Cloudflare route.
::I'm not going to go back and find out which IP it represents, to check if it's in their current stock of connected gateways, but it might not be. Or it was even (depending on date) a pre-Cloudflare 'straight' access unproxied and thus no longer seen, even if the exact same editor on the exact same IP lucked on ''their'' initial gateway.
::Certainly it won't map to a meaningful 'user', chances may even be that it doesn't map to ''any'' user. IP-version User/User Talk pages are anachronisms pretty much as soon as they're created. Or before, if based upon trying to contact an author of an older edit. I was on 172.70.85.131, above, but who knows (before I submit it) what this reply's sign-off will say.
::And a one-shot editor may never ever see the results of any conversation that was tried to be started. Whereas I ''might'' see any response, anywhere, that contextually makes it plain that they're talking about an edit I once made.
::Honestly, I think it'd be worthwhile checking ''every'' IP-focussed namespace page and archiving anything truly interesting that found itself in there in some other central location then condemning them all to deletion. Maybe, if possible, prevent their creation too. But I don't have the ability to do anything (except sift through them for any of the very rare gems of quality, but I wouldn't be able to do anything about it from there on in, so...
::...not gonna do anything more about it (I can't, other than reinstate the To Be Deleted membership, whch I won't bother with), but I hope you understand my perspective on this. I've seen you become a very useful member of the community, who I generally respect for your input and tweaks to the site, and don't expect you to take instruction from li'l ol' me (not even working with an established identity). Just consider this as food for thought, and leave it at that if you wish. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.19|162.158.34.19]] 20:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

== RTL/LTR: "...but I think it refers to me" ==

Yeah, it does. The point being that we might not do anything about the smartarses who vandalise knowingly (and I don't see a problem with what you otherwise did), but when someone thinks ''they'' have unique and funny joke (along the lines of putting "Citation needed"s ''everywhere'') they might spot the comment and then realise how we've seen it all done before so refrain from the prank. I can't even recall how many times we have had to revert things, but best to put off the casual comedian, and it won't change the outcome either way for the dedicated vandal with their blood up and looking to cause trouble. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.107|141.101.98.107]] 20:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
:I guess you're right, I just thought it was very clear for everyone that rendering an entire article unreadable was an act of pure vandalism, but I guess an editor comment doesn't hurt. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 10:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

== The reason "the image size wasn't there"? ==

...because it didn't need an image-size restriction, originally? Compare the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/File:Miss_lenhart.png previous and current version sizes]. Nice to have a (''huge!'') high-res headshot, no doubt, but clearly that's why you found that it now needs artificially constraining... No actual mystery. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.63|172.70.85.63]] 17:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

:Yeah you're right, I just assumed every comic had the image size to be future-proof. The weird thing was that the "imagesize: " part was already there, but there was no value. Anyway, nothing important.

: Just out of curiosity, are you the same IP guy from [[#IP page to delete]]?--[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 18:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

== I disagree with Oxford commas. ==

"For breakfast I had some bread, toast, and jam." - A legitimate(ish) case of ", and ". Or "I created the world, and saw that it was good." I otherwise prefer to suscribe to replacing all non-final conjunctions in sequence with commas but ''not'' adding one before the ultimate (remaining) conjunction. That's like having "Fish, and chips", where it isn't an actual afterthought. And best to rephrase or repunctuate (e.g. with super-listing semicolons to separate) if you have confusing comma-breakout clauses that ''so'' easily clash (or lead you down funny garden paths) with Oxford Commas. My opinion, but this is why syntax is clearer when leaving out OCs. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.93|172.70.85.93]] 13:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
:I just think it's better to use it everywhere to avoid any possible confusion. If we used it half the time, it would be inconsistent. But it's no big deal.
::Similarly, no big deal. Except that it ''looked'' like an error. You've done a lot of useful changes, recently... A ''lot''... Which is not a bad thing, I must add. Occasionally I've seen what (I thought!) you intended to say, and I've helped out with a misplaced word or two. And I honestly do not feel like OCs read correctly in many circumstances. How would you even OC something like "...you should paint it red, yellow or, maybe, orange"?
::The comma already does a lot of heavy lifting, four or five different uses can occur in the same sentence, with it commonly doing duty as a sub-clause parenthetical (except without the clear open/close distinction of an actual parenthetical) ''as well as'' conjunction-replacement within a list. You will find many instances of non-OCed lists on the site. In fact I find the "Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd..." bit, below this edit box, to be the exception and not the rule.
::Anyhoo... I 'corrected' an example, but did not re'correct' it once you made it obvious what rule you were working to. I think you're less right than me, naturally, even if I wouldn't say that you're more wrong. ;) But I thought I'd make you a brief note of my thoughts rather than edit-warring the issue. Less brief, now, but I hope you still take it in good humour. (Oh, yeah, I'm sort of Ok with Oxford Spelling, insofar as it's mostly what I use naturally. Except for the "-ize" bit. That and their Comma are totally against how I was taught at school, a number of decades ago. :P ) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.71|172.71.242.71]] 15:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
:::You really seem to care about this a lot more than I do, if you want feel free to revert my edit back. I'm not even sure why we're here talking about commas lol
:::I'm no expert and I just like commas. Thanks for checking my edits, I think I've seen a few of your corrections. I have a lot of free time at the moment and I seem to like fixing up unorganized things here --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 21:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

== Science Girl/Hairbun ==

You may have noted that several of the Talk pages attached to those you changed already had discussions about whether someone was Hairbun or (a possibly grown-up version of) Science Girl, and you had people like Kynde support the change ''to'' treating her as Science Girl. No skin off my nose, but I'm not sure your arguments are strong enough to support your broad sweep changes in that regard. I think I'd side with "bun with trailing hair" being SG (regardless of apparent age/maturity, as the description only really says ''usually'' a child, whether you take that as prescriptivist or descriptivist) but not enough that I'd reverse your considerable efforts in this matter. But on the off-chance that you hadn't noticed the prior discussions and conclusions, before making your own assessment. FYI, only. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.204|172.71.178.204]] 14:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

:I will properly reply to you tomorrow since it's midnight here. Btw thanks for letting me know these hyperlinks were rendered correctly, and for fixing my 1 typo <s>(after i corrected 100)</s>
::Guys, some things may be being taken too seriously. Assuming [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1608:_Hoverboard&diff=prev&oldid=317396 this was the 'one error'], yeah, the Pedant's Curse hits us all, that's the point. Easy to see how it was done (read as "a Category:Interactive..." rather than "an interactive", or whatever). Happens to the best of us, when concentrating on loads of other things. Not sure about the Jill thing, at all, myself, but that discussion is probably for soewhere else. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.158|172.69.79.158]] 22:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

:::Nonononono I wasn't serious when I thanked you about the typo, I was also just kidding. I was joking about how after I corrected a ton of typos I added one more.
:::On the main topic you brought up: I think Jill's main characteristics (I'll talk about why I renamed her) are that she is a child, she is usually interested in science, and has always one or two buns with trailing hair. [[Hairbun]] isn't as defined as Jill: she just has a bun. This is what the page [[Hairbun]] (written entirely by Kynde, I haven't reformatted to remove the bullet points yet), say about the bun:
----
:::*Her appearance, apart from her glasses, can also change.
:::**In 703: Honor Societies, 708: Sex Dice, 1511: Spice Girl, 1601: Isolation and in every instance in 1608: Hoverboard her hair looks somewhat different, curly and with some kind of ponytail, but since '''her main distinguishing characteristic is the hair bun''', these comics are included.
:::[...]
:::*There are some characters with hair buns that are not Hairbun:
:::**Since she is a grown woman, she should not be confused with Jill or any other small girls with hair bun like in 1584: Moments of Inspiration.
----
:::And on the Page for Jill, before I ever touched it, it said:
:::*As she is usually also clearly a child she usually cannot be confused with Hairbun
----
:::Kynde mentioned [[1511: Spice Girl]] and [[1601: Isolation]] as featuring Hairbun and not Jill, but they look exactly like a grown-up Jill. Plus, on the gallery section on [[Hairbun]] (I'm working on adding back a better one since the old one was kinda broken UPDATE 11:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC): Added the gallery back with vector images), this was the first picture of Hairbun:
:::[[File:Hair Bun Girl with curly hair and ponytail.png]]

:::So, to recap: Hairbun has always had a version with a bun with trailing hair, but it was inconsistent between comics, so I settled on Jill is a girl that always has trailing hair and Hairbun is an adult that sometimes has trailing hair.

:::On the topic of renaming Jill:
:::*I searched the wiki for Jill and found 3 discussions. One of them ended up "why world we even create a page for that girl, there aren't many comics featuring her.", but didn't criticize the name too much iirc
:::*We did the same thing for [[Danish]]. The only time she was given ''any'' name ("Danish in the sense of "darling" iirc), that was the name used.
:::*If we change our minds and Jill also becomes a woman, we don't have to remove the "girl" part.
:::*I'm not sure about this, but I think she's slowing being added more and more outside science comics.

:::Wow this was long --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 10:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

== In reply to [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2794:_Alphabet_Notes&curid=26437&diff=321127&oldid=320916 this query]... ==

There's {{w|Welsh orthography|the Welsh}}, at the very least! (Well, you did ask! Even if it's truly not so relevent. ;) ) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.159|172.70.86.159]] 11:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:Lol. TIL! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 20:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

== Plural animals ==

Following on from Ferret->Ferrets, what about the last remaining singular that is Category:Apatosaurus? (I must admit, all your edits/re-edits are making my head spin, as worthy as they often are, but this seems like the next logical step that I thought you might have done to finish that particular neatening job.) But I'll leave it up to you as to whether it's Apatosauruses, Apatosaurii or whatever else you might consider most appropriate... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.98|172.70.85.98]] 10:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
:I actually thought about it, and I came to the conclusion that I don't know what the plural of that word is. Feel free to research if there's a "right" word and rename that category :)
:> (I must admit, all your edits/re-edits are making my head spin,
:Yeah I don't really organize everything I want to change beforehand, so whenever i notice a little thing is missing, I add it to every page that needs it. I guess it's easier to review my edits in bulk from a page's version history lol --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 10:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

== Username ==
I spotted a spam-like user named "Papyrus". [[User:ChristmasGospel|ChristmasGospel]] ([[User talk:ChristmasGospel|talk]]) 21:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:Interesting, i edited that comic's page yesterday. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 07:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
== Community portal spam ==
The spammers seem to be deleting text from Community Portal. [[User:ConscriptGlossary|ConscriptGlossary]] ([[User talk:ConscriptGlossary|talk]]) 07:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks, but I couldn't find any recent example concerning me. Do you mind giving an example? --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 07:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

== Possible Adminship? ==

Hi FaviFake, I’m Victoria. I’m planning on reaching out to Jeff via Twitter/X because there’s a long list of things that only he can do. You can see the list at my [[User:42.book.addict#To_Do_List_for_Jeff|user page]]. One of these tasks is promoting more admins. Seeing as you are quite active, and have done quite a lot of edits (top 10 in CS score-wow!), would you like to be mentioned in my message as a possible admin candidate? [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 17:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
: Oh hey, thanks for messaging me! I started caring a lot for this site about a year ago, went on a complete pause for a few months, and came back this week. You seem very active, love to see some new active users! I saw your message on the community portal saying you were trying to find a way to contact Jeff. That's actually something I've thought about doing for a long time but never actually tried since not even Davidy22 was able to contact him at one point iirc.
:Anyway, yes, I'd love to be an admin for this site since there are so many things I can't do as a user (i have my own to-do list, which includes 1) actually deleting pages in Pages to delete and 2) improving/fixing the comic templates and Main page).
: So yeah, I wish you good luck contacting him! My only advice is to use any possible way to (or to get someone else to) contact him without worrying too much about annoying him. His last contribution was more than a year ago, he can totally jump back in for a moment after being unreachable for so long. I really like your message, it's very well-written, now the hard part is getting it to him. Asking Davidy22 for his email address (or finding it online) sounds like a great idea to me. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 22:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

== Trivia below transcript ==
The FAQ page says that trivia is below transcript. I'm very sorry about this. [[User:ConscriptGlossary|ConscriptGlossary]] ([[User talk:ConscriptGlossary|talk]]) 00:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Nono don't be sorry, you're totally right! I came back here after months of being offline and forgot about the order! I realised my mistake yesterday but didn't have the time to go look for the article to revert my edit. Please revert it if you get the chance to do it before me. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 04:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::There, I should've fixed it now. I see you also reverted my edit, thanks! [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 04:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

== On the Ghosts in the NavPane ==

When I saw 42's inclusion of Ghosts in the Character NavPane, I was pondering asking for Demons and Aliens (the blob-monster types, or near variations, from both UFO-ish comics and far-future) to be added alongside.

But I agree with you that they're not ''really'' minor characters. Yet I think they (all of them) deserve a slot there, as they are as much a feature as the (Animals/)Squirrels section. Originally thought to suggest "Groups" (could include "Multiple Cueballs" and even "Children" for groups with otherwise un-IDed child characters), which you could still ''also'' add (but for human-character groups only), but now thinking "Other Beings" could hold Ghosts, Demons and Aliens (maybe "Future Beings" separate from the latter, or at least the differently-futuristic "Floating Orbs" as ''another'' other classification category in there). As a section between Real People and Animals, I thought, unless it's decided best to put them after Animals.

Food for thought, anyway. You (and 42, and maybe others) may have your own ideas on this, and I wouldn't (and can't) spring my own ideas upon you by suddenly just editing the appropriate source. It probably needs discussion. I nearly put my earlier thoughts in the Community Portal area, but as you're personally active on this at the moment I thought it might be easier for you to ponder if I finally commited it to writing just here. (Feel free to move this contrib/advertise it wider, if you see fit.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.62|172.70.91.62]] 14:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:Just popping in to add my 2 cents-I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of having “other beings” in the navbox. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 16:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Hey there, thanks a lot for messaging me about this. I disagree with you for one specific reason: the navbox was initially supposed to catalogue the recurring characters in the comics which displayed more or less the same behaviours across comics, such as [[Black Hat]] and [[Beret Guy]]. It then expanded to include real people, such as politicians, which still remained the same characters across different comics. The animal section is different in that some of them are the same animals across comics (such as bobcats and red spiders, for example), but since we had to include them, we included EVERY animal, even when they were completely different every time, because it'd look weird if the only animals there were the specific ones i mentioned.
::If we included a section such as Other beings that includes ghosts, I believe it would be filled with characters that are not the same in every comic they appear in and the navbox would completely lose its intended purpose. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 18:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

== (Whoops, forgot a header!) ...FYC ==

If you agree with {{diff|356369|these additions/changes}}, with or without other adjustments, I was wondering if you'd like to do the respective changes to the Incomplete Article category page, as I find it's semi-protected and I'm thus locked out from the edits that I thought I might duplicate there too (in my IP state – yes, I know I could change this, but I'm happier just to leave it up to you/whoever). Anyway, for your consideration. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.75|162.158.202.75]] 17:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
: Done! Thanks. I removed a few technical details. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 07:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

== Interesting streamlined 'table furniture', but... ==

...I'm wondering about the current (slight) usage differences between:
style="text-align:center" | {{{1}}}
and:
style="white-space:nowrap" |
Do you need to add the Param1 to the nowrap/remove if from the text-alignment?

And what if someone wanted no-wrap+centre at the same time? There maybe ''are'' ways to combine <code><nowiki>{{ac|<foo>}}</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>{{nw}}</nowiki></code>, but it seems non-trivial to to do. (Unless you make a <code><nowiki>{{nwac}}</nowiki></code>, but then where do you end?) I'm wondering if you should try it without the |-character.

Let's see if that ''could'' work:
{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ Test
|-
! Foo !! Bar !! Baz
|-
| Normal text of a normal style || style="text-align:center" style="white-space:nowrap" | This is as if using variations <code><nowiki>{{ac|<foo>}}</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>{{nw}}</nowiki></code> as rendered without the pipe-character or inconsistent parameter, which is tricky to demonstrate with the actual templates.|| More normal text of a normal style
|-
| Normal text of a normal style || style="text-align:center" | style="white-space:nowrap" | This is how <code><nowiki>{{ac|{{nw}} <foo>}}</nowiki></code> might look || More normal text of a normal style
|-
| Normal text of a normal style || {{ac|{{nw}} This is how <code><nowiki>{{ac|{{nw}} <foo>}}</nowiki></code> ''does'' look, using the current state of the templates.
----
<s>''NB. Why is it in bold? Is that a normal feature of a style of text-align:center?''</s>}}
| More normal text of a normal style
|-
| Normal text of a normal style || style="white-space:nowrap" | style="text-align:center" | This is how <code><nowiki>{{nw}} {{ac|<foo>}}</nowiki></code> might look || More normal text of a normal style
|-
| Normal text of a normal style || {{nw}} {{ac|This is how <code><nowiki>{{nw}} {{ac|<foo>}}</nowiki></code> ''does'' look, using the current state of the templates.}}
----
<s>''Also goes bold, I notice!''</s>
| More normal text of a normal style
|}

So, yes, it looks like it might be better to just remove the pipe (or pipe-and-param) and rely on the table-writer to just put in the relevent bare style-giving {{}} (or {{}}s) before the pipe. (I must look into why there's unexpected boldness. I don't know if that comes from the way you templated it or as an associated function of the aligh-center style. But it doesn't appear when I do it 'raw'.) Anyway, food for thought, over to you. It looks like I ''could'' edit your templates, but that might be rude, and would of course instantly break whatever it is you're currently using them (singly) for. That's the ''What If?'' table, I suppose? Anyway, you can both 'fix' how they work and adjust how they are invoked, rather than leaving me to guess about the latter. ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.49|162.158.74.49]] 19:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:PS: Yes, I have just checked, and, yes you've added (apparently ''after'' I saw and copied the original {{template|ac}} for my own testing and emulating purposes!) the bolding to the aligh-centering template. That part of the mystery is solved! :P [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.49|162.158.74.49]] 19:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:PPS: I know what happened. I copied the (slightly '''formatted''') 'plaintext' as it appeared in the template. If I'd have edited it and copied the wikisource then I'd have grabbed the <nowiki>'''formatted''</nowiki> as you already had it by the time I passed by. Don't mind me, it was just something that made me wonder. Probably moreso than the thing that I was ''actually'' trying to prod and poke and solve! IOW: Ignore me. On this bit, at least! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.151|172.68.205.151]] 19:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::I love how interested you are about this! Honestly i'm not really sure what exactly it is you're asking, but you seem very smart so do whatever you want! My only request is that the {{:ac}} thing keeps working as expected, so i don't have to change the table again. I had forgotten about the {{:nw}} thing, you can delete it or change it or do anything else, I don't use it anymore. Feel free to add to the documentation that these are just for 1 table and might break everything if used anywhere else. Or, if they already work everywhere, great! I remember I created them expecting the entire page to be destroyed when used, and being pleasantly surprised when they worked. So yeah go wild! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm not going to make any change without taking time to check your tables and making sure the appropriate change doesn't inflict damage on your attempts to curate the tables you're probably using it for.
:::But, in short, I understand that you're streamlining the (often longwinded) style="" statements, an admirble task. In the structure of "| cell || another cell || etc", you're doing something to save from having to do cumbersome "| cell || style="this-style: that; that-style: that; the-other-style: the.other" | another cell || etc", all of which makes editing 'difficult'. (I tend to do such things in Notepad, or whatever separate text editor I have, which lets me add temporary whitespace and use with no-wrap on the markup while I'm working on it, rather than in this textbox editor.)
::: But the single-pipe that formats the cell isn't a ''great'' difficulty to maintain (indeed, it is useful to line up). As such I'd suggest "| cell || <nowiki>{{??}}</nowiki> | another cell || etc" would be as good. i.e. leave the pipe (intended for the table-cell) out of the template. For the no-wrap version, that's easy enough. Though I do understand that you want to put bold-format about the cell contents, so that's why you give it as a param and explicitly bold the Param1 as you pass it back out.
::: Maybe the solution to ''that'' is to also add (to the style, along with the text-align:center) the "font-weight: bold" doublet. Then "... || <format(s), as templates and/or raw> | Cell Text || ..." doesn't ''need'' to 'enclose' the Cell Text in any way.
::: But making the change from something that expects to transclude the range of the template "... || format | Cell Text || ..." to "... || format | Cell Text || ..." obviously requires that each and every table-cell item that uses "... || <nowiki>{{template|Cell Text}}</nowiki> || ..." to be converted to "... || <nowiki>{{template}}</nowiki> | Cell Text || ...", or... it'll definitely not work as it was originally set.
::: Anyway, that's just my own vision of how you can do what you seem to have wanted to, without introducing more complications. As the cell-formatting gladly accepts multiple statements of the form style="..." (it adds <code>style="..." style="..." style="..."</code> together, much as <code>style="...; ...; ..."</code> does), an editor now has complete freedom to compound the two format-templates you created. And any additional ones that might be useful. Such ones to usefully colour cell backgrounds as red/yellow/green (for use on the various Confusion Tables), something that I sometimes take a couple of goes to do... not least because I habitually spell 'color' as 'colour'..! ;)
::: ...but that's just to explain so that (should you/anybody else wish to follow my own instincts on the matter), you have some decent idea of what I'm getting at. There are probably other ways of doing it. Templates can be made to detect and extract pipes, so that "... || <nowiki>{{template1|{{templete2|Cell Text}}}}</nowiki> || ..." ''or'' "... || <nowiki>{{template2|{{templete1|Cell Text}}}}</nowiki> || ..." would equally produce "... || templateOneOrTwoFormat templateTwoOrOneFormat | Cell Text || ...", but that would take a degree of of unwieldy parameter-processing functions (that I'd have to work out, probably would involve some subst-function, but might depend upon what's available in the installed mediawiki version). I just think you could avoid all that trouble! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.118|162.158.74.118]] 22:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Forgot to say, that for what you want to use it for, there's ''another'' way:
{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ Example 2
|-
! Number (Centered) !! Foo !! Bar (Centered) !! Baz
|-
! 1
| Normal text of a normal style
! Some text of whatever size (centered)
| More normal text of a normal style
|-
! 2
| Normal text of a normal style
! Some text of whatever size (also centered, though not so obviously so)
| More normal text of a normal style
|}
:::... This is only possible by newlining each new cell, in the example (you can't do "! cell || cell !! cell || cell", you have to line-break it as you change from "!"-/"|"-starting cell-groups), but it isn't really so great a loss to do so.
:::The "wikitable" class gives these 'header cells' a different background too, but (if you really don't like that) it that can be adjusted in various other ways (including with scope="col", I think), or you can leave the wikitable class off (it centres and bolds, but doesn't give cell-borders) and re-add the whole-table bordering style that this now leaves out. But you really don't want me listing ''every'' idea I had, just this one was the other (template-free) option to enforcing centre-aligning bold text on ''certain'' cells. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.119|162.158.74.119]] 23:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Huh, I was actually thinking of doing the opposite of what you're suggesting: include even more pipes inside the template so the editor is cleaner and easier to use. (UPDATE: this probably worse than the other option you gave at the end, see below). So instead of this:

|-
<nowiki>| {{ac|4}} || </nowiki>

::::You would just use this:

|-
<nowiki>{{ac|4}}</nowiki>

::::And it would contain all the pipes needed. I guess then we would have to update the documentation to point out that this template's use case is extremely narrow. Also, if you want to see how it is currently used, the table is on my user page! That's the only place where it's used

::::Since you seem very interested in templates, What do you think of the idea of a creating a template like these:

<nowiki>{{yt|YTNUMBER (1, 2, 3, etc)|YTLINK|VIDEOTITLE (optional)}}</nowiki>

::::It would be used in the column that we still need to create. It would also colour the cell in '''red'''. I was also thinking of doing a similar thing for the What If? books:

<nowiki>{{bk|WHICH-BOOK|CHAPTER-NUMBER|CHAPTER-TITLE (if different)}}</nowiki>

::::For example, it would look like this: (This one would also colour the cell based on the book, e.g., green for WI?1, yellow for WI?2, blue for WI10th ed.)

<nowiki>{{book|2|69|Jellyfish}}</nowiki>

What If? 2, chapter '''69: Jellyfish'''

::::Would you be able to create something like this? I know nothing about templates, and i doubt I'll be able to ask chatgpt to do everything for me correctly. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 07:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::> Forgot to say, that for what you want to use it for, there's ''another'' way:
:::::Oh, i think i had forgotten to read this part!! This seems very interesting! I should try that, since it seems much simpler. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 10:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::'''Update:''' {{Done}} I applied your suggestion, now the numbers are in their own row:
|-
!1
| The rest of the table
--[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 10:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

== What If Chapters ==
Hey FaviFake, there are some What If? Chapters that aren’t included in the blog. Are we going to add them to the table? '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 17:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:Great timing! You sent me this message while i was in the process of replying to the question. I'm not good at prioritising, I should've definitely responded before doing other edits. Check out my <s>list of questions for y'all</s> reply above! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 18:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

== YouTube template ==
Hey FaviFake, on the <code><nowiki>{{yt}}</nowiki></code> template, you asked for help on fixing the code of the template. What help do you need to “improve” it? I’m willing to help now that I’m not sick, as I was last week. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 18:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you! Glad to hear you're healthy. That message was mostly a joke, but it is in fact barely held together. (Try modifying the hyperlink that's displayed when a title isn't provided, somehow what you add gets duplicated??) If you have the time and know how to make it more reliable and easily editable in the future, please do! I am honstly scared to touch it fearing it might explode.

:Buuut, to be fair there is one template that i desperately needed help with, and that is [[:Template:book]]. I wasted a ton of time to try to get it to change the cell background, and it never worked, so i decided to create [[Template:book1]], [[Template:book2]], [[Template:book3]], [[Template:book4]], and these do work beaytifully, but are harder to edit in bulk. (I still have profound hatred towards [[Template:book]]...). If you actually manage to do what i wanted (which i'm not sure is even clear after the all the mess i've made... ask me if you can't figure it out!), I would be very grateful. PS. I'm not sure if i should warn you, given my very low ability to create templates, but it's definitely not easy, imo.

:I'm not sure how skilled you are at template editing, so if you want, you can absolutely continue uploading the What If? thumbnails like you did a few days ago! I just added [[User:FaviFake|a new batch of articles]] (about 60) thanks to some annoyingly complex jailbreaking of Google's NotebookLM. The new table of course includes the quick 100px link to upload a file. Again, thanks for reaching out! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 19:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::The YT link appears to be going to <nowiki>[[whatever the name of the YouTube video is called]]</nowiki> and not acting as a [youtube.com filler thingy] linking to a YouTube video. I’m going to hit the books on template writing and try to see if I can do anything about it. Cheers! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 03:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh great, that's broken too. I didn't even realise it. Thanks!--[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 04:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:Partly because you've removed the bit about how to better sort the book-column elements, but are using the same trick in the youtube-column, and partly because it's easier (more on that in a moment), I've just modified the {{template|yt}} to give it the sort value (of article number) directly. Have not removed the expression test to make "6th video ..." into "06th video ...", for sorting purposes, but I feel confident that you ''can'' do that (and remove the comment about making it give "006th video ...", in future, should that become necessary) if you now so wish.

:For the books, I was thinking that if, instead of <code>="<nowiki>{{{1|0}}}</nowiki>"</code>, you could maybe use <code>="<nowiki>{{#expr:10000+{{{1|0}}}}}</nowiki>"</code> for ''What If?'' (in {{template|book1}}) and <code>="<nowiki>{{#expr:20000+{{{1|0}}}}}</nowiki>"</code> for ''What If? 2'' (in {{template|book2}}), to let it sort by book ''and then'' chapter within book...

:For ''What If? 10th Anniversary Edition'' ({{template|book3}}), I was thinking if you could make the added-to number 11000. Though anything from above 10000+<last chapter number> and below 20000-<last chapter number> would do (and 15000 would work), it leaves room to make any appearance of the 15th anniversary, 20th anniversary, 42nd anniversary, ..., 95th anniversary be able to use the mnemonic offsets of 11500+, 12000+, 14200+, ..., 19500+.. ;) Obviously, it would need revamping if there becomes a centenary edition of Book 1 (or any version of it ever gets ''so many'' "bonus chapters" that it breaks out of its own sequence into the next extant anniversary edition. But you'd need to start adding 100 newly-numbered chapters ''per year'' to do that, so probably not likely. But, right now, the sorting on the "Exclusive to ''What If? 10th Anniversary Edition''" line sorts ''before'' the "NNth chapter of ''What If?''" lines. The above should fix that...

:And the format can be used for other (future?) books and their (possible) reissues: For ''What If? '''N''''', reissued '''YY''' years after the original, that's the number "NYY00", to which you add the chapter number. Fairly futureproofed, but if Randall ''ever'' publishes anything that makes you need to make the offset "NNYYY000" (e.g. for the quarter-of-a-millenium reissue of ''What If? 15'', having a total of 512 chapters being 15250000+[1..512]) then I reckon the requisite changes will be easy enough to handle as and when, swapping in the expanded offset. And... hey... if they're still being written, ''and'' published, then I can only hope I'm still around to be able to add that edition to my bookshelf!

:You could even redo the {{template|book}} idea (parameters of ...|book=#|chapter=#|optional:edition=#?|...) to only ever need to maintain the one source with ''all'' this flexibility. You've already got experience (by the 1st/2nd/3rd/Nth code) with what's needed to translate Book Number(+Edition Number, if applicable) into unique background colour codes.

:The big problem, though, is still the non-numeric chapter 'numbers' in ''WI?2''. I have two (or three) different thoughts about that.

:*For only the numeric bits (currently, in the test for less-than-10, etc; in the above for within the <code>data-sort-value="..."</code>) you might want to switch <code><nowiki>{{{1|0}}}</nowiki></code> with <code><nowiki>{{#if:{{#ifexpr:{{{1|0}}}}}|99|{{{1|0}}}}}{{{1|0}}}</nowiki></code>... This should test the param1 value for being a valid value (or missing, when you already make it zero... though not sure for what circumstance you should consider it validly missing) and using it if it is so, or else using the value "99" (or you could have "0", or "0.5", or whatever floats your boat). Then at least you'd get ''a'' value (that doesn't cause errors), though it probably wouldn't be sorted very precisely (though appear just after/before all other chapters of the book).

:*The other idea is to use <code><nowiki>{{{effectiveChapter|{{{1|0}}}}}}</nowiki></code>, then you can append a parameter of <code>...|effectiveChapter=11.5}}</code> to a non-numeric one sitting between actual chapters 11 and 12 (I haven't checked if that's an actual example, but imagine it is...). Also, for multiple items on page-chapter, you could even have =11.51, =11.52, =11.53, etc, to retain order within the book and ''upon the page''... (You could also give effectiveChapter as "NYYCC(.optional)" format, direct, for ''all'' what if? Numbers, YYearly-editions and CChapters (with possibly sub-positions), come to that, but I don't see that as any simpler a solution as building it in.)

:*The third option would be to use (for hidden sorting-only purpose, mostly) a value of P(.optionalDecimal) either as another numeric parameter or a named one, with P as ''page number'', not chapter number. But, given how hardback vs. paperback (or just another imprint, not necessarily even a Anniversary redo, but I've got the UK edition with an additional UK foreword) ''might'' effect page numbers and/or where end-of-pages interupts any given chapter internals, it's possible that this is not consistent enough. But food for thought, maybe. Only needs to be definitively done once (or thoroughly checked and shuffled along as nevessary if redone to include other changes that require consistency).

:Any of that make sense? Hopefully I've at least given you enough examples to ponder, where not immediately obvious. I'd ''really'' rather not change all your hard work just for the sake of a minor cosmetic change with a possibly major set of retouches, which is one of the reasons why I thought I'd do just the basic Youtube 'sort assisting' bit and let those of you who have already had so much 'fun' (tweaking the table formats) decide if and how you make full use of it. Assuming it isn't (differently) broken, for whatever reason may crop up, it shouldn't be a problem if you do nothing at all more with it (either in the {{template|yt}} or {{template|book#}}s). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.26|172.71.241.26]] 14:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

*Thank you so much! Would you mind if I moved your message to [[Talk:What If? chapters]], to group everything regarding the index in one place?  Anyways:
*I did the thing on the yt and {{template|blog}} one and it works!

For the books, I was thinking that if, instead of <code>="<nowiki>{{{1|0}}}</nowiki>"</code>, you could maybe use <code>="<nowiki>{{#expr:10000+{{{1|0}}}}}</nowiki>"</code> for ''What If?'' (in {{template|book1}}) and <code>="<nowiki>{{#expr:20000+{{{1|0}}}}}</nowiki>"</code> for ''What If? 2'' (in {{template|book2}}), to let it sort by book ''and then'' chapter within book...
*Done! Thanks! For ({{template|book3}}) i used 30000 to have the chapter in chronological order.

You could even redo the {{template|book}} idea
*Sorry but I'm not touching that... ''thing'' anymore. That template traumatized me (jk! if you want to try fixing it i'd be very happy)

For only the numeric bits (currently, in the test for less-than-10, etc; in the above for within the <code>data-sort-value="..."</code>) you might want to switch <code><nowiki>{{{1|0}}}</nowiki></code> with <code><nowiki>{{#if:{{#ifexpr:{{{1|0}}}}}|99|{{{1|0}}}}}{{{1|0}}}</nowiki></code>... This should test the param1 value for being a valid value (or missing, when you already make it zero... though not sure for what circumstance you should consider it validly missing)
*I'm not sure why that's needed (and also how to actually implement it). What happens if the value is invalid? it seems to work. Or is it required for the other improvements you suggested?

The other idea is...
The third option would be...
*Yeah this seems pretty hard to solve easily (which is why i'd love it if you did it!). I guess it'll stay slightly broken until it becomes a bigger issue. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::It seems like you just forgot to escape pipe characters in the [[Template:book|book template]] in the table within the switch statement, so it just interpreted the non-formatting statements to be a case grouped with the next 'actual' case [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 07:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
::BTW I fixed the book template. It should now appear the same as the other templates, and even work with the youtube template [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 09:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::OMG THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! IT ACTUALLY WORKS! What! How! Why!
:::Thanks so much for fixing the template! I can't describe how glad I am to see it working as (and even better than) I wanted. My life is finally complete. I have switched to using your template in the index.
:::The reason there was a YT link in one of the {{template|book}} documentation examples is because I was going insane and likely pasted it there by accident. From what I can tell, you seem to have set up {{template|book}} so well that {{template|book}} accepts a YouTube link as input, while the {{template|yt}} template it's based on doesn't if used by itself (requires only the ID). I love this! Since we're gonna have many YT videos to add, it's great to have a much simpler option which doesn't require extracting the ID of the video. Is there a way you could maybe incorporate this improvement into {{template|yt}} itself? Or maybe you're 10 steps ahead of me and you've already done it (which wouldn't surprise me given the amount of wizardry you used on these bad boys!), and I just didn't notice. Please let me know! And again, thank you so much!!! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 17:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Also, since you've already rendered 4 templates useless thanks to your improvements, why not also add {{template|yt}} to the list of pages to delete, by incorporating it into {{template|book}}? This, unlike {{template|book}}, is absolutely not needed, and I also have no idea if it's as easy as a simple copy-and-paste, or if it requires more work. If it's the latter, please don't do it if you don't want to! I'm just throwing ideas around! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 18:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

That IP, here. I (think) I fixed the sorting ''and'' error-fallback issues. I think (without trying to roll back to how you had it) you 'broke the sort' by putting in line-feeds (maybe double-ones), that messed up the table/cell handling. Then you broke the handling by commenting out too much (you needed to "< ! - -" and "- - >", without spaces, without crossing the quotes and |ing boundaries in data-sort-value="..." style="..." and the 'release', by pipe symbol, to cell-contents).
 Recommented for it to work normally, first without the new 'sort assistance' and then with again. Had a look at the error-catcher (went down a blind alley, at first) and made it an explicit "catch all other inputs" for the errororing display, which I formatted in a more obvious manner ''and'' forced to sort to the start. (Well, almost the start. It puts empty cells with no sorting 'ahead' of even the -999 value I made it give any error-caught cells.)
 If it were me, I'd be happy to have {{template|yt}} entirely separate from the {{template|book}} handling. It is mnemonically confusing and adds needless (and possibly error-prone) "if we have far too many params for Book template, feed it all into the Youtube template". Unless you're folding the ''whole'' Youtube template into the body of the Book one (even more work to maintain/debug), it's just adding complication for both server and editors who feel forced to use it. The beauty of the monolithic Book template is that (otherwise identical) "Book N, chapter C, optional new title T" information is trivially similar between different Ns. But it's not my project.
 I'll have a dig about in maybe how to have a table sort "valueless" cells (in reality the empty value of cell absolutely without anything in it) beyond the sort-valued ones. The 'easiest' means I could imagine is to accept <nowiki>{{book|0}}</nowiki>, needing no further params, to create a <code>data-sort-value="999999" |''<blank>''</code> cell-definition, and have every book-column cell without a book-reference explicitly use that (ditto for <nowiki>{{yt|0}}</nowiki> to have the same pre-trap to it). But seems wasteful. A template <nowiki>{{empty}}, or even something like {{e}},</nowiki> (without checking if either of those are free names) could also just give us this behaviour straight off, of course. It's potentially a lot of fuss to make consistent and flexible enough, either way.
 But what I already did probably also needs to be checked for more edge-conditions... I may still have to tweak things when I have a better chance of catching errors (very difficult, on a tablet), and quicker. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.196|172.70.162.196]] 21:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
:I also think that the book template shouldn't be used for the videos, on the basis that youtube is not a book.
:for the default cell, it would probably take no arguments (i.e. just {{yt}}), and it would also probably be it's own template rather than implemented on each template. However, I have done some digging, and empty cells (cells with no sort value) are given a value of "-infinity", so they sort as the absolute minimum no matter what sort method is used (which means always at the top when sorting ascending). I have been looking to find a way to make a row always sort to the bottom regardless of sort order if the column that is sorted has an empty/valueless cell at that row, but if it exists, it is not documented.
:Interestingly, it is possible to sort by many columns at once by shift-clicking the second column after sorting the first column, and the rows will be sorted within the first sorting. it might be useful for sorting by chapter within each book [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 06:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, a book (or youtube) template could default to whatever seems suitable as sort-value without params, but it might be more obvious if explicitly book(/video) zero. Or caught by <nowiki>{{book|nobook=yet}}</nobook>, or whatever. I'm trying to think what looks least confusing to future editors (those expanding/editing the table, and/or template(s)), but conflicted about what to anticipate.
::I had indeed been looking to see if the -infinity thing could be overriden by a column header defined <code>blank-sort-value="999999"</code> sort of thing. If nothing else, you'd expect there to be a perceived need to sort a range of cells so that explicit negative and explicit positive contents, either by actual cell value or data-sort-value, to sit either side of blank cells... Not ''all'' the time, as sorting to show blanks ''separate'' from filled rows with actual zeroes is also useful, but it seems to useful not to have been suggested as a configurable change.
::The booknumber*A_LARGE_NUMBER offset to the chapter number is probably one of the most useful ways to sort by (primarily) book, then chapter, as it takes just one click. (I believe clicking the secondary and then clicking the primary does the same job as clicking the primary and shift-clicking the primary.) I see so little use to doing a primary sort by chapter (with or without secondary sorting by books, or any other column's detail), to interleave all chapter 1s and so on, that having a "book #" column and a "chapter(/page) #" column (two cells in sequence easily created by the book template, and could also handle the double-blank needed by book=none implementation, if we went that route) would be just complicating matters in an unnecessary manner. (As opposed to how we've complicated matters in a 'necessary' one!)
::Good catch on bringing the BOOK+CHAPTER sort value out of the #switch, BTW, as I was debating how much of the switch-statement I could treat as generic and not need repeating. (My original idea for the 10th Anniversary version of Book 1 to be effectively "Book1.1" made me still want to option of overriding the N*10000 as being 3=>11000 instead of =>30000, but that could ''still'' be implemented by a bit of "(if N=3, 1.1, else N) times 10000" pre-logic, ''or'' by handling <nowiki>{{book|1.10|...}} instead of {{book|3|...}}</nowiki>. Anyway, not important, either way.)
::...all this is why I left Favi (and you/others) get on with the original restructuring effort without jumping in (despite having two of the three books, and having seen all the youtubes). I had plenty of ideas of what to do, but did not want to restructure anything from what seemed to be a happy little project with its own momentum and targets. I finally gave in when I noticed an impasse being hit, with errors and confusion, to which I since ''hope'' I have provided a net reduction in both. Though it's only the first of these about which I'm fairly confident. ;) Anyway, perhaps I'm sliding back to my position on the sidelines, now... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.245|172.70.91.245]] 11:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3039: Human Altitude

2025-01-22T13:55:52Z

172.70.91.245:

I splurged a few paragraphs to try to deal with each detail (and a few things not ''directly'' obvious, but related). However, it's a mess and here (UK) it's basically past my bedtime and I have an early(ish) start tomorrow so... I know that if I had spent another half hour on it, it would have been tighter (less florid?), and would be linking to Yuri Gagarin, Montgolfier, Hubble, man-capable chinese kites, the likes of George Cayley, etc. And I never actually ''mentioned'' the Title Text, though the last paragraph I put is sort of relevent so might just need an "In the title text, it says ..., and, as it happens, ...". I shall leave it up to the editing-gods as to whether my sacrifice is acceptable or entirely in vain... Such is life! And so, goodnight. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.119|172.68.205.119]] 01:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:I linked up a couple Wikipedia articles with [[Template:w]] and wish I could add all of those things, but alas: today’s the last day of the semester on a 3 day weekend here in the States and I’ve been sick all week. I’m going to be going now to work on my missing assignments and hopefully finish them, really wish that we can finish up the explanation as quick as we usually do! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 01:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
It seems strange how jagged this is and how low the lows are. Since roughly 1930 (certainly since 1940 at the very latest) someone, somewhere in the world has been flying in an airplane, at a minimum of probably 4.5km for the lowest person. And since like 1955 there's always at least someone over like 7km roughly, and since the jet age like 10km+. This isn't the kind of carelessness that xkcd is known for, unless I'm missing something.[[User:Kchinger|Kchinger]] ([[User talk:Kchinger|talk]]) 03:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)kchinger
:The Apollo part of the graph implies an at least weekly, probably daily or finer resolution. Aviation unlikely reached 4.5 km above surface on a daily basis until transpacific high altitude airliners became a regularity well after WW2. Planes of the 1930s could achieve greater heights, but usually only attempted when moutains forced them to (so it was not height above ground) and high altitude Zeppelin bombers of WW1 did not fly on a daily basis, sometimes leaving week long gaps between campaigns. However, the pre-airplane lows are still wrong: Pole vaulting has been documented since ancient egypts for crossing of crevices, bodies of water, etc. giving a guaranteed minimum of 2-3 meters. Cliff jumping in the 10s of meters range is also likely to have occured daily somewhere on the globe long before the 20th century and I would not be surprised if some tyrannt created a phase of more than 100 m daily by intensive cliff throwing. (As with the ancient chineses kite observation flights, it might be interesting to extend this graph well into the past, at least up to Spartan postnatal parenthood planning.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.194|172.70.250.194]] 16:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::''Aviation unlikely reached 4.5 km above surface on a daily basis until transpacific high altitude airliners became a regularity well after WW2. Planes of the 1930s could achieve greater heights, but usually only attempted when moutains forced them to...'' The limit is the humans. Past 10k or 15k feet (~4.5km) they go loopy then pass out. Pressurized cabins are costly. Wiley Post flew past 17,000 ft (to 50kft!) in 1934 with a pot on his head, after two other suits split their seams. War forces high flight: the B-17 crews had oxygen bottles and electric heat suits; they did fly about every day but thin air was the least of their problems. B-25 was pressurized but not nice inside. The Constellation (the world's finest tri-motor) was one of the first shirtsleeve cabins, to 24,000 ft (7,300m), but was a very premium ride. The DC-2, DC-3, and DC-4 were unpressurized (a few test DC-4s tried it). Piston engine output tends to zero by 55k ft, even with supercharger. The real move to high altitude comes with turbojets (Comet is credited with first pressurized production passenger plane), Boeing 707, Caravelle, DC8, etc which often work better far above 20k feet. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 20:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::While pesky waterbags limit the altitude of passenger aircraft, military, scientific and perhaps even postal/fright aviation went past 4.5 km without pressurized cabins. As mentioned, London was bombed at the end of WW1 from Zeppelins with regular service ceilings well above 6 km, the record was set at 7.3 km. And these did not even carry oxygen for the full flight time, as did record attempts. Take a link to the first flights above Everest in the early 30s: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/first-flight-expedition-everest-1933/ However, this is all record/rare stuff for top peaks. With overlapping nights in Europa and America, the global low of the 30s was probably limited by some BOAC cruisers flying 500 to 1.000 m above the sea or some valley floor in southeast Asia. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.148.59|172.71.148.59]] 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

For the "Apollo bits", I actually have (fairly) precise data, but the question is whether the spiky bits resemble the reality at all. Here's a version with accurately positioned timestamps, but with the the altitude normalised. Launch is at bottom, time in lunar orbit is at top. To keep the data short I have removed the 'oscillation in orbit" of them all (except for 13, which ''just'' looped around and came straight back out again), and the track of the landers (as never really gets any ''further'' away, averaged over a lunar orbiter orbit) as these things aren't really isn't visible if overviewing the whole program. Blue=orbit-only, Green=orbit-with-landing, Magenta is 13's mission. All sat on a month-start scale (thicker lines are year-starts), for reference.
{{cot|Apollo.SVG}}
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="25174 0 1499 500" >
<g id="monthlines" opacity="0.15" stroke="black">
<line x1="25204" y1="0" x2="25204" y2="500" stroke-width="5" id="1/Jan/1969"/>
<line x1="25235" y1="0" x2="25235" y2="500" id="1/Feb/1969"/>
<line x1="25263" y1="0" x2="25263" y2="500" id="1/Mar/1969"/>
<line x1="25294" y1="0" x2="25294" y2="500" id="1/Apr/1969"/>
<line x1="25324" y1="0" x2="25324" y2="500" id="1/May/1969"/>
<line x1="25355" y1="0" x2="25355" y2="500" id="1/Jun/1969"/>
<line x1="25385" y1="0" x2="25385" y2="500" id="1/Jul/1969"/>
<line x1="25416" y1="0" x2="25416" y2="500" id="1/Aug/1969"/>
<line x1="25447" y1="0" x2="25447" y2="500" id="1/Sep/1969"/>
<line x1="25477" y1="0" x2="25477" y2="500" id="1/Oct/1969"/>
<line x1="25508" y1="0" x2="25508" y2="500" id="1/Nov/1969"/>
<line x1="25538" y1="0" x2="25538" y2="500" id="1/Dec/1969"/>
<line x1="25569" y1="0" x2="25569" y2="500" stroke-width="5" id="1/Jan/1970"/>
<line x1="25600" y1="0" x2="25600" y2="500" id="1/Feb/1970"/>
<line x1="25628" y1="0" x2="25628" y2="500" id="1/Mar/1970"/>
<line x1="25659" y1="0" x2="25659" y2="500" id="1/Apr/1970"/>
<line x1="25689" y1="0" x2="25689" y2="500" id="1/May/1970"/>
<line x1="25720" y1="0" x2="25720" y2="500" id="1/Jun/1970"/>
<line x1="25750" y1="0" x2="25750" y2="500" id="1/Jul/1970"/>
<line x1="25781" y1="0" x2="25781" y2="500" id="1/Aug/1970"/>
<line x1="25812" y1="0" x2="25812" y2="500" id="1/Sep/1970"/>
<line x1="25842" y1="0" x2="25842" y2="500" id="1/Oct/1970"/>
<line x1="25873" y1="0" x2="25873" y2="500" id="1/Nov/1970"/>
<line x1="25903" y1="0" x2="25903" y2="500" id="1/Dec/1970"/>
<line x1="25934" y1="0" x2="25934" y2="500" stroke-width="5" id="1/Jan/1971"/>
<line x1="25965" y1="0" x2="25965" y2="500" id="1/Feb/1971"/>
<line x1="25993" y1="0" x2="25993" y2="500" id="1/Mar/1971"/>
<line x1="26024" y1="0" x2="26024" y2="500" id="1/Apr/1971"/>
<line x1="26054" y1="0" x2="26054" y2="500" id="1/May/1971"/>
<line x1="26085" y1="0" x2="26085" y2="500" id="1/Jun/1971"/>
<line x1="26115" y1="0" x2="26115" y2="500" id="1/Jul/1971"/>
<line x1="26146" y1="0" x2="26146" y2="500" id="1/Aug/1971"/>
<line x1="26177" y1="0" x2="26177" y2="500" id="1/Sep/1971"/>
<line x1="26207" y1="0" x2="26207" y2="500" id="1/Oct/1971"/>
<line x1="26238" y1="0" x2="26238" y2="500" id="1/Nov/1971"/>
<line x1="26268" y1="0" x2="26268" y2="500" id="1/Dec/1971"/>
<line x1="26299" y1="0" x2="26299" y2="500" stroke-width="5" id="1/Jan/1972"/>
<line x1="26330" y1="0" x2="26330" y2="500" id="1/Feb/1972"/>
<line x1="26359" y1="0" x2="26359" y2="500" id="1/Mar/1972"/>
<line x1="26390" y1="0" x2="26390" y2="500" id="1/Apr/1972"/>
<line x1="26420" y1="0" x2="26420" y2="500" id="1/May/1972"/>
<line x1="26451" y1="0" x2="26451" y2="500" id="1/Jun/1972"/>
<line x1="26481" y1="0" x2="26481" y2="500" id="1/Jul/1972"/>
<line x1="26512" y1="0" x2="26512" y2="500" id="1/Aug/1972"/>
<line x1="26543" y1="0" x2="26543" y2="500" id="1/Sep/1972"/>
<line x1="26573" y1="0" x2="26573" y2="500" id="1/Oct/1972"/>
<line x1="26604" y1="0" x2="26604" y2="500" id="1/Nov/1972"/>
<line x1="26634" y1="0" x2="26634" y2="500" id="1/Dec/1972"/>
</g>
<g id="missionLines" fill="none">
<path d="M 25193.5354166667,490 L 25196.4162037037,10 25197.2571296296,10 25199.6609027778,490" stroke="blue" id="Apollo 8 "/>
<path d="M 25341.7006944444,490 L 25344.8645138889,10 25347.4344675926,10 25349.7030439815,490" stroke="blue" id="Apollo 10"/>
<path d="M 25400.5638888889,490 L 25403.7234953704,10 25406.2053472222,10 25408.7017939815,490" stroke="green" id="Apollo 11"/>
<path d="M 25521.6819444444,490 L 25525.1579050926,10 25528.8675462963,10 25531.8738888889,490" stroke="green" id="Apollo 12"/>
<path d="M 25669.8006944444,490 L 25673.0145833333,10 25675.7553356481,490" stroke="magenta" id="Apollo 13"/>
<path d="M 25964.8771064815,490 L 25968.2914583333,10 25971.0687962963,10 25973.8784722222,490" stroke="green" id="Apollo 14"/>
<path d="M 26140.5652777778,490 L 26143.837337963 ,10 26149.8907986111,10 26152.8651967593,490" stroke="green" id="Apollo 15"/>
<path d="M 26405.7458333333,490 L 26408.8489236111,10 26414.0941319444,10 26416.822974537 ,490" stroke="green" id="Apollo 16"/>
<path d="M 26640.23125 ,490 L 26643.8291087963,10 26649.9827430556,10 26652.829837963 ,490" stroke="green" id="Apollo 17"/>
</g>
</svg>
{{cob}}
If you want to see it, copy the text into a file, save/rename as a .svg and open it in any modern browser. (There are other ways of opening SVGs, but that's probably the easiest way for most of those who don't have a preference.) ...to make it look more like the comic, I suggest you make the stroke-width for the missionLines group '''''huuuuuuge!!!!''''' ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.118|162.158.74.118]] 21:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Some of the text (both in the explanation and the "into snow or water" in the title text) seems to suggest a "who wasn't shortly killed" that isn't stated in the chart. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.246.150|172.69.246.150]] 05:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:"into snow or water" is in the title text which is about surviving... --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I wonder why the chart does not consider parachutes? They might have been available around the same time as balloons, maybe earlier? [[User:Captain Nemo|Captain Nemo]] ([[User talk:Captain Nemo|talk]]) 12:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:A parachutist can onyl start as high as his ballon, so that would make no difference until paragliding became a sport (way too late). However, most highs are still utterly wrong due to the omission of high altitude balooning from the mid-19th century onwards: It seems that no true airplane has ever beaten older baloon records. AT ALL. In fact, among all the objects capable of aerodynamic flight, only the X-2, the X-15 and the Space Shuttle set new 'maximum manned altidude' records going beyond aerostats of their time. However, all three ascended in balistic, rocketpowered flight, only using the lift of their wings during return. So humanitys pinnacle has always been defined by people thrown of cliffs, people attached to kites, peoples in baloons or people on rockets. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.194|172.70.250.194]] 16:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

huh. no joke comic. [[user talk:lett‪herebedarklight|youtu.be/miLcaqq2Zpk]] 15:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_Huangtou Yuan Huangtou] is a strong contender for the question in the title text. As a punishment he was sent to the sky on a big kite which was then let go. He came down 2.5 km away and survived. It seems entirely possible that he may have reached altitudes of several hundred meters. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.95.196|162.158.95.196]] 19:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:From my recollection of a book on Chinese kite history, I'd put the max for a person-carrying kite at around a couple hundred meters. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.9|162.158.41.9]] 04:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:As a technical argument, I'd mention that what makes a kite a kite is that it is tethered (albeit dynamically, whether to a winch or a firmly ground-based handler, rather than necessarily ''tied to the ground''; this makes the kites in kite-surfing/sailing/skating/etc a bit of an edge condition, but still valid as the canchor' is only ever itself airborne by temporarily depleting the kite's 'lift ability').
:Unless it was at the end of a 2.5km tether, at least part of the time the kite was released became a glider. And the means for keeping a glider up (and then ultimately not descending too fast!) are somewhat different from how you make a kite controllable. Even if you successfully raised a man-kite up and brought them back down several times (getting both the payer-out person ''and'' the payload-person used to how to control the kite-flight), the attitude and augmenting flight-surfaces that the kite used to get/keep/maintain height would probably be entirely wrong (perhaps even counterproductive!) when the release happens and the 'passenger' needs to now suddenly develop the need to "fly a glider" (or, maybe, a suboptimal parasail)
:I would not be surprised if many (reluctant) 'test pilots' failed to work out how not to stall (and other forms of flight-failure) in the time and distance they had before they reached the ground. The later ones ''might'' have a better hash of it ''if'' they were taken to witness their first compatriots' efforts (and those initial 'candidates' were able to shout down what they were feeling/doing, during their final fateful moments, to assist both the builders and future-fliers)... But, in the days before ''any'' actual aviation experience (let alone any form of flight-recorder, for both easier detailing of events and the repeatable playback for their better analysis), quite a bit of luck (or some coincidentally instinctive panic-induced response to falling, perhaps somehow harking back to the most recent common ancestor with a sugarglider/flying-squirrel/etc) will have played a part in whoever it might have been who rode a once-kite-now-glider down.
:Or, possibly, part of the luck was that the released tether was long enough to ''drag'' on the ground (given the options for rope/chord, around that time, and possibly the spool it was unspooled from, before the spool itself was released (by accident/design)), and with a strong enough wind and a consistently 'draggy' free-tether, it maintained a kite-like flight profile for the suggested distance (never being any higher than when ground-tethered, but only ''very gradually'' losing its initial height), such that the CFIT at the end was a 'survivable' (legs first? kite-structure acted as an initial crumple-zone?) landing.
:Of course, it's at least partly a legendary account. Could be somewhat contrived from retellings and embelishments, 'originally' just being (out of many such 'experiments' with 'volunteers') a controlled rise that was then re-winched-in, conflated with what happened when the tether snapped/etc, during a particularly windy day, and where the resulting wreckage was discovered. I think it's ''possible'' it happened (and one might even be able to plan to re-enact it, with modern knowledge of aeronautics and hands-on experience with all the more recent methods and means of flying), but it sounds like it became known ''only'' because it was a memetic (and maybe composite) success, only having to compete with the few "glorious failures", not the many occasions where some basic idea (that ''may'' have eventually led to better ideas) just didn't work ''or'' notably fail. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.195|172.70.160.195]] 14:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

11 paragraphs should be 5-7. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.155|172.71.151.155]] 05:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Annotated the image [https://imgur.com/a/nQ3FZdi here]... Green line is "current absolute record" (assuming the truth of the plot), blue line is "highest height that will now always have someone higher" (again, going by the plot), red line is "record by a living individual" (''based'' upon the plot, and several historical truths I could discern, but probably getting to be as much speculative as the original joke-plot-with-a-passing-basis-in-fact). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.164|172.69.79.164]] 01:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

In 1966 there should be a peak above 1000km, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_11 Gemini 11 flight], September 12-15, 1966, which reached an apogee of 1,374 kilometers. [[User:Rps|Rps]] ([[User talk:Rps|talk]]) 17:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems like the graph is ignoring USSR's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir Space Station Mir]. Per wiki, it was occupied for 12.5 years of its 15 year lifespan from 1986 to 2001. Honestly, feels like a weird thing to miss while including the ISS explicitly. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.140|172.70.207.140]] 06:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

since it got removed in the last edit, here's [https://www.heavens-above.com/OrbitHeightPlot.aspx?Width=1600&Height=1000&satid=25544&startMJD=51000&endMJD=61000 iss height over time]. change the start & end mjd to zoom in [[User:Regex user|Regex user]] ([[User talk:Regex user|talk]]) 11:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, {{diff|363143|that edit}} did ''a lot'' of "tightening". And seemed to give up trying to tighten, by the end, merely chopping whole segments (it now gives the impression that there's just one alternate interpretation of the Title Text, instead of the several valid ones). Can't deny, some of the things I wrote in were excised, but I won't take it personally. Some bits seem random; e.g. it has lost the link to "hoist by one's own petard", whilst keeping the base phrase about gunpowder (strange choice, as the link doesn't add to word-count in that section), as well as now never really explaining why the (undocumentable) wind-blown record-holders are even significant. Could do with some (careful) editing back in. I admire the attempt, and I know it probably needed pruning from how it was, so I'm respecting the intention but pointing out that it might need a bit of selective re-adding (or paraphrasing) from the original. Leaving it up to less verbose types than myself, though (who are also not ''too'' laconic). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.245|172.70.91.245]] 13:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

3039: Human Altitude

2025-01-21T09:52:47Z

172.70.91.245: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3039
| date = January 17, 2025
| title = Human Altitude
| image = human_altitude_2x.png
| imagesize = 508x495px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I wonder what surviving human held the record before balloons (excluding edge cases like jumping gaps on a mountain bridge). Probably it was someone falling from a cliff into snow or water, but maybe it involved something weird like a gunpowder explosion or volcano.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT HILARIOUSLY STUCK IN A TREBUCHET- Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
The comic purports to show the altitudes of the highest humans over time, starting from a little after 1700. The conceit is that it indicates the ''single'' most altitudinous individual at any given time, so does not follow any particular person but would switch focus to whichever representative of humanity becomes "the highest up" (whether by rising above the previous leader, or by remaining high as the other loses their own elevation). There will necessarily be a degree of artistic interpretation and presumed trajectory of this particular marker, although the general trend of the line appears to be inspired by (some) actual factual realities. It uses a [[Log Scale | logarithmic vertical scale]] in order to indicate the finer details of 'low level' altitudes, yet fit the highest achievements onto the page. The measurements appear to be height above the Earth's surface, rather than, say, height above sea level, so a resident of {{w|Tibet}} or the {{w|Andes|high Peruvian Andes}} (for example) does not normally gain any particular advantage.

Prior to 1783, the {{w|Montgolfier brothers#Piloted flight, autumn_1783|first confirmed ascent}} of a human in a balloon, the line's high-points are indicated to be due to "various falls", i.e. a person who ''was'' on the top of a particularly high building/cliff/tree suddenly finding themselves (for an instant or two, at least) the person 'lucky' enough to be considered the furthest above the Earth (it is at times like this that living at a higher absolute altitude ''might'' grant an 'advantage' to the individual who suddenly discovers their previously high standing-spot to no longer be as reliable as they thought). It also suggests that "catapult accidents", such as accidentally, or maybe [https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/nov/01/highereducation.students not so accidentally] being caught in a sling on a {{w|trebuchet}} when it is fired (indicated as "hilarious") may also contribute to the (momentary) gain in altitude. The limit to this period's ability to exist at altitude appears to be around 100 metres, which is perhaps mostly what a particular precipitous (and precarious) cliff-top might contribute to the situation. Only the eventual punchline of the title-text even hints at whether any of these feats might have been survivable, perhaps the minimum requirement is merely that the individual be alive (to still be considered a person) at the point they are at their claimed height — if the resulting return to ground level is fatal, usually this will happen upon meeting the surface, by which point they are already no higher than all other humans.

Once {{w|balloon}} flights start, heights of up to 10km are attained. And though there were some {{w|List of ballooning accidents|dangers}} from this, as early aeronauts discovered, it might at least now be presumed that some of these peaks were attained by individuals who had previously marked a prior instantaneous altitude on the graph.

Shortly after the 1900s, {{w|airplanes}} dominate the graph. And the rise in utility of passenger aircraft (before World War 2; but especially afterwards, following a period where regular and extended high-altitude flight has been experienced by bomber pilots of various nations) ensures not only that there are people attaining greater and greater altitudes, but also that there are also always ''other'' people in the air, ensuring that the lesser 'maximum altitude' periods still have people a significant number of kilometres in the air.

Interestingly, the lower-limit, all the way up to the invention of the airplane, seems to stay at about two metres (around 1881, the lowest marked position seems to be only slightly above 1 metre), which might represent the possibility of there always being at least ''someone'' climbing up a ladder and/or jumping off of a hay-cart. This does not, of course, discount the very real possibility that there are persons about to attain greater altitude, as the parts ''between'' the lowermost fluctuations obviously represent periods of someone having yet greater vertical displacement.

Once {{w|spaceflight}} becomes a thing (interestingly, marked around the late 1960s, though it actually started in April 1961), that greatly increases the upper spikes for the (implied) duration of the {{w|Orbital spaceflight|orbital flights}}.

The {{w|Apollo Program}} is then indicated by both label and a notable spike as (between {{w|Apollo 8}} in December 1968 and {{w|Apollo 17}} in December 1972), men from Earth were sent around the Moon and attained altitudes 'above the Earth' of approximately 400,000km in the process. Note that the disclaimer "(very approximate)" in the chart's title also applies here, as the graph shows fewer spikes than actual Moon orbitings or landings performed.

Since the end of the original Moon landings, the upper spikes settled down quite significantly back to 'only' generally low orbital distances, but the very latest era, marked "Space Station", seems to coincide with the current continuous inhabitation of space, which officially started in November 2000. Since that date, there has ''always'' been someone at approximately 400km altitude (give or take [https://www.heavens-above.com/OrbitHeightPlot.aspx?Width=1600&Height=1000&satid=25544&startMJD=51111&endMJD=61000 changes in the orbit], and of the terrain below), with occasionally some yet higher person(s) on certain missions (e.g. servicing the {{w|Hubble Space Telescope}}, May 2009 at 515km). The graph does not ''seem'' to show the blip created by {{w|Polaris Dawn}}'s 1,400 km 'new record' of September 2024, but this may be ''just'' off the right-hand edge of the graph.

Though the historical validity is sometimes argued, it is interesting to note that (as early as the 6th century CE), experiments with man-flying kites may have produced (semi-)brief spikes in the altitude record for the time.
Also, workers and bell-ringers in medieval cathedrals, or attendants at the Lighthouse of Alexandria, would have been substantially above the "tens of meters" level. Moreover, the Eiffel tower has been open to visitors since its opening in 1899, which would have ensured some people to be at at least 276m, during the opening hours. This indicates that people standing on buildings and tall structures do not count for the purpose of the graph, and combined with the fact that tornadoes can lift people high in the air and touch them down alive (though the latter stipulation ''may'' not even be required). It may be that Randall excluded cases in which the person was standing on a permanent structure, considering that as an equivalent to varying terrain. Perhaps he also refuses to count cases that are difficult to substantiate/quantify, such as those caused by violent winds, although the graph ''does'' convey the impression of an omniscient and absolute certainty beyond the more broad historical basis it outlines.

The title text talks of record-holders who survived, and the possible circumstances. Amongst these circumstances would include anyone who had to leap a narrow gap above a deep drop, momentarily having an extreme height above the ground directly below them, without the absolute certainty of fatality (though still open to risks) of stepping off a similarly high cliff-top. (As of the date of the comic, the record for jumping off a cliff into water --- and surviving, albeit with minor injuries --- appears to be 58.8 meters. This was officially set in 2015, but there seems to be no particular reason some couldn't have done it earlier if they wanted to. The Tomb of Hunting and Fishing, c. 520 BCE, has a fresco showing someone diving off a cliff with other people watching. Unfortunately, they neglected to include a height scale.) Randall considers these as 'edge cases', and ponders what more violent events may have literally propelled someone to a notable height. It is unlikely that he is entirely serious about his two suggestions. A gunpowder explosion would be dangerous enough at the {{w|Hoist with his own petard|start of the process}}, leaving the unfortunate individual probably not in any condition to appreciate the remaining trajectory. The possibility of ''any'' survivable event being triggered by close proximity to a {{tvtropes|LavaSurfing|volcanic eruption}} is unlikely, and even less possible to prepare for.

Unlike the rapidly fluctuating line of the graph, a graph of the human altitude ''record'' would stay level except when incremented by a new attainment being reached, effectively drawing directly across from a given high-point in the trace until a new peak crosses it, then starting again from the top of ''that'' peak. The further stipulation of survivability would be represented by a lower line (only given the level of the tip of a new fluctuation once it is ratified that the individual concerned has survived their return to ground level, unsurvivable events not changing things). A lowest-upper-limit line could also be drawn using the low-tips of all fluctuations, representing the greatest height above the ground for which, from any given time onwards, there is always now at least one person higher. Currently, this would be at the lowest level of the orbit by the ISS but, if the ISS is abandoned prior to any further habitat in space (or beyond), this may need to be retroactively lowered to jet-plane altitudes (assuming they stay the dominant factor that they are, in the absence of space-inhabitation).

A ''different'' line to plot, which may also be the interpretable intent of the title text, could be the highest height visited by a ''still living human''. Though no currently surviving human can have ever held a record "before balloons", in the time prior to balloons there will have been individuals alive who had survived heights (and perhaps also their resulting falls) who would have been still living for at least some of the time that they technically held the record. This trace would follow (most of?) the graphed upward fluctuations to their tips, then stay at least this high for only as long as the individual remain alive. This could end almost immediately (their death occurring at height, due to exposure, or upon their terminal return to ground-level), or else for the rest of their long and fulfilling future life (or until someone else superseded them). But upon their demise, whenever that might be, any record that they might still have held would revert back down to whatever attainment ''another'' still-living human had established (which need not have previously featured on any graph, while those with greater marked achievements were still alive). Some of this graph would have a very similar look to [[893: 65 Years]], but in different ways and for different reasons; it would attain 'Moon height' from the very first orbit of Apollo 8 until the last death of an Apollo astronaut (from missions 8 and 10 to 17), assuming no {{w|Human mission to Mars|greater records}} are set before that point, then be reliant upon any living Artemis crews (or those from any {{w|Chinese space program#Near future development|equivalent}}) to sustain the "living record".

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:Height above Earth's surface of the highest-altitude human over time
:(very approximate)

:[A line graph is shown, with frequent spikes on the line. The y-axis is a logarithmic scale from 1 meter to 1,000,000 km. The x-axis shows years from about 1710 to 2025.]

:[Label between 1720s and 1780s, maximum height is roughly 100 meters:]
:Various falls and hilarious catapult accidents

:[Label with multiple arrows, from 1780s to 1910s, maximum height is roughly 10 km:]
:Balloon flights

:[Label with multiple arrows, from 1910s to 1960s, maximum height increases to roughly 100 km:]
:Airplane flights

:[Label with arrow, in the late 1960s, maximum height is roughly 500 km:]
:Spaceflight

:[Label with arrow, in the 1970s, maximum height is roughly 500,000 km:]
:Apollo Program

:[Label between 1990s and 2025, the average height after 2000 is roughly 500 km:]
:Space station

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Line graphs]]
[[Category:Timelines]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Aviation]]

Talk:3038: Uncanceled Units

2025-01-15T14:43:51Z

172.70.91.245:

DUDE I'M STILL IN SCHOOL RN, WHAT?
(also, the joke is that energy is power*time, so kWh is kJ/s... in an hour [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 13:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess not every comic can be a winner. Talking about an appliance using a certain amount of kWH per day is clear and normal. Power gets billed by the kWh, not the Joule. While technically not wrong, wanting "cancel" a sub-part of the commonly-used energy unit kWh and leaving it in deliberately-obscured units most people are less familiar with is the sort of insanity I'd more expect from White Hat than Cueball. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.171|172.70.35.171]] 13:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:Maybe that is a meta-joke? To frame kWh/day as something crazy by giving that line to whitehat --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:There's a difference between instantaneous power draw, and the total "volume"(/area, really) of power over time. Though a fridge is "always on", it is still only irregularly at full-draw. But, to the power company (or to the gas company, who will generally give a kWh measure of 'energy taken from the network'), they don't (generally) care whether you used twice as many kW over half the time or half as many over twice the time, within any given total billing period, even if it affects what you think. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.46|172.70.163.46]] 14:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Using joule as if it was an everyday unit of energy would be weird but I don't agree that watt is crazy. It's a normal unit of energy consumption that does mean something to people, e.g. 1000W microwave, 100W (incandescent) light bulb. Don't get me wrong kWh/day is also useful to translate it to your energy bill, but I do feel slightly uncomfortable every time I see that time divided by time :-) [[User:Mtcv|Mtcv]] ([[User talk:Mtcv|talk]]) 14:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

This is especially funny with US units. My car needs about 5l/100km, or 0.05mm². Now I am wondering how many ft^(-2) my car does... --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

fridge [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.147|172.70.126.147]] 14:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The late [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._C._MacKay Sir David MacKay] wrote an excellent book, [http://www.withouthotair.com/ Sustainable Energy – without the hot air] (which is available free online).
On [http://www.withouthotair.com/c2/page_24.shtml this page] he talks about the units he uses in the book: kWh for energy ("one unit") and kWh/day for power - becuase it's simple for lay-people to understand - how many units does this appliance use per day.
It's a good book if any of you are interested in sustainable energy (although it was written in 2008, so some bits might be out of date by now) {{unsigned ip|172.70.85.33|14:33, 15 January 2025}}

User:Apollo11

2024-12-18T19:52:34Z

172.70.91.245: Undo revision 359852 by Definitely Bill Cipher (talk) I'm sure they will take all this under advisement, but you do *not* nitpick another user's User page directly.

I'm Apollo, not the greek god, the space program. Obvously Apollo 11 is my favorite. Did you know that if you wrapped a string around the world.....

.....that it'd probably take a lot of string.

Hi, so I've just started college and I'm currently very busy, I will most likely only be working on Backward in time, and Ill try to log on at least once a week. So if you've messaged me and I haven't responded thats way. - Apollo

 {{Userbox | border-c = #255 | border-s = 1 | info-s = 9 | id = [[File:visited.png|visited.png|45px]] | info = [[1051|This user has seen every xkcd comic ever made.]] | float = right}}

==Me==
A lot of people are putting things about themselves so I guess I will too. I like AJR, Raynes, Indie-Pop, and soft rock. I also love this one Album series called the EPIC Saga. I snowboard, skateboard, play chess, and astronomy (yes I'm using it as a verb, deal with it). I also blacksmith and spray paint (on canvas). I like John Green (I suppose his brother's books too), and Morgan Rhodes' series Falling Kingdoms. I'm currently down an organ, one of them staged a coup and had to be executed. Thats enough about me.

==Political Beliefs==
Lets start some consraversy (I suck at spelling)

These are my political beliefs, feel free to tell me yours.

[[Beret Guy]] is the best followed closley by [[Black Hat]].

The [[1000]] comics are better than the [[2000]] comics

A hotdog is not a sandwich, it's a taco and ceral is not a soup, its a salad. (think about it, soup is where the ingredients are cooked so the nutrients are in the broth, will a salad is a when a fatty liquid is added to a combanation of ingredients).

[[Electron Color|Electrons are Yellow, Protons are Red and Nutrons are Blue]]

Ravenclaw is the best, their house colors are blue and BRONZE, and their house animal is an eagle, I will fight you.

Two spaces belong after a period and comas can go before "and".

Uranus should be pronounced "oo-ran-us" or "or-run-us"

I am not fixing the spelling of conseraversy.

Peter Pan is evil.

==Consperisy Theorys that are totally defenly 100% probably true==

We have two moons but NASA is secretly hiding one, the one that we see IS actally made of cheese and they landed on the hidden one.

The allegely 1000 year old honey in the pyramids is only 75 years old and was dropped by Winnie the Pooh on his vacation to Egypt.

Math is the governments way of controling us, they fill our brains with the ussless subject so we can't figure out their schemes. Why else would they teach us 5th degree polynomials???

The government allows the rumor that vaccines are how their implanting their mindcontrol chips in us because it pushes the spotlight away from their REAL method, Band-aids!!!

Randall is a time traveler and his comics are how he warns us of the future.

==Help Needed==
ALSO, please help with [[Backward in Time]], its not complete and needs a lot of work, I'm working on it best I can but I also don't have that much time on my hands

==Thanks and some advice==
Also thank you to everyone who have fixed my spelling mistakes :)

Anyway

Be nice, remember, if you're about to yell at someone for a lack of knowledge, dont. Kindly point them in the right direction, what if that is their [[First Internet Interaction|"Green Day Moment"]]?

Dont vanilize, nobody thinks its funny, and its not funny to piss people off, thats called being a dick (or a [[Black Hat|sociopath]] take your pick).

Too anyone who's new, dont feel shy to edit, this comminuty is nice, brutally honest but nice!

Have fun ;)

590: Papyrus

2024-12-14T04:30:27Z

172.70.91.245: Undo revision 359454 by 172.71.219.103 (talk) Red category

<noinclude>
{{comic
| number = 590
| date = May 29, 2009
| title = Papyrus
| image = papyrus.png
| titletext = I secretly, deep in my guilty heart, like Papyrus and don't care if it's overused. [Cue hate mail in beautifully-kerned Helvetica.]
}}</noinclude>

==Explanation==
One of the comics in the "[[:Category:My Hobby|My Hobby]]" series, this one touches on the fact that the font {{w|Papyrus (typeface)|Papyrus}} is considered to be overused by many typography geeks, including the font's own creator. Pretending that he doesn't know that, [[Cueball]] gives [[Ponytail]] a heartfelt card written in that font just to see her twitch.

The title text says that [[Randall]] actually ''likes'' Papyrus, even if it ''is'' overused, and refers to the fact that he will soon be receiving hate-mail from people who dislike Papyrus. Those mails will be written in {{w|Helvetica}}, another commonly-used sans-serif font that is highly esteemed by typography geeks, designers, and often hipsters. It suggests that the designers would also take the time to check the "{{w|kerning}}", editing the spacing between individual letters to be visually pleasing - a time-consuming activity that, it can be suggested, would only be noticed by other designers. See also [[1015: Kerning]].

==Transcript==
:[Caption above the panel:]
:<big>My Hobby:</big>
:Getting typography geeks heartfelt cards printed in "Papyrus" and watching them struggle to act grateful.

:[Ponytail is holding a card, with lines of indiscernible text, open and looking down, specifically neither on the card nor on Cueball, who is watching her instead. An angry tic is flicking on her forehead.]
:Ponytail: Thank you for the ''*twitch*'' ... lovely... ''*twitch*'' birthday card!

==Trivia==
Some editors have made a page that is a copy of this explanation in the Papyrus font, which can be accessed on [[590: Papyrus/Font]]. Note that the default browser font will only be overridden if Papyrus is installed on your device.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:My Hobby]]